1965 (8) TMI 74 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved
1. Whether the application in revision was barred by limitation by virtue of the provisions of section 10(3) prescribing the period of limitation of one year for application in revision.

Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Limitation Period for Application in Revision
The central issue was whether the application for revision filed by the assessee was barred by limitation under section 10(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, which prescribes a one-year limitation period from the date of service of the order complained of.

The facts of the case are as follows:
- An assessment order for the year 1952-53 was passed on October 13, 1953, and despatched on December 26, 1953. The assessee received it in the first week of January 1954.
- The assessee did not appeal the assessment order but applied for revision on September 12, 1955.
- Initially, no period of limitation was prescribed for revision applications. However, an amendment effective from April 1, 1954, introduced a one-year limitation period from the date of service of the order, with a possible six-month extension at the Judge's discretion.

The court had to determine whether the amendment applied to the assessee's revision application. If it did, the application was barred by time; if not, it was within the permissible period.

The court held that the amendment applied to all orders regardless of when they were made or served, thus making the application barred by time. The court clarified that this did not amount to giving the amendment retrospective effect because procedural laws are generally retrospective unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Retrospective Application of Procedural Law
The court discussed the nature of procedural laws, emphasizing that they are generally retrospective. The court cited several precedents to support this view, including:
- Gardner v. Lucas (1878) 3 App. Cas. 582
- The Attorney-General v. Sillem and Others (1864) 10 H.L.C. 704
- Anant Gopal Sheorey v. State of Bombay A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 915
- Abdul Karim v. Deputy Custodian-General A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1256

The court noted that procedural laws, such as those concerning limitation periods, are designed to regulate the time within which rights may be asserted in courts and do not affect the rights themselves. Therefore, the amendment to the limitation period applied to the assessee's case.

Vested Rights and Procedural Changes
The court rejected the argument that the assessee had a vested right to apply for revision without a time limit. It clarified that there is no vested right to apply for revision of an assessment order under the Sales Tax Act. The court distinguished between substantive rights and procedural remedies, stating that procedural changes do not impair vested rights.

Conclusion
The court concluded that the application for revision was indeed barred by limitation under the amended section 10(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, U.P., and the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. The assessee was ordered to pay costs assessed at Rs. 200.

Reference answered in the affirmative.

← Previous Next →