1969 (8) TMI 76 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a revision application under section 10(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was rightly dismissed as barred by limitation.

Analysis:
The case involved M/s. Badri Prasad Ayodhya Prasad, who were assessed to sales tax and filed two appeals against an exemption order and an assessment order. The appeals were disposed of on 30th April, 1961. Subsequently, they filed revision applications challenging the appellate orders on 23rd June, 1964, which were dismissed by the Additional Judge (Revisions) as time-barred. The assessee then sought to refer certain questions of law to the High Court under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The court deliberated on whether the question of limitation could be referred under section 11 of the Act.

The revising authority's power under section 10(3)(i) of the Act to pass orders was discussed. It was argued that a reference to the High Court could only be made if the question of law arose from the order passed under section 10(3)(i) and since the question of limitation would have been decided earlier, it could not be said to arise from that order. Reference was made to a previous decision, Sukhan Lal Amar Nath v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, which was scrutinized in this context.

The court disagreed with the earlier decision, stating that even an order dismissing a revision application as time-barred would fall under section 10(3)(i). It was emphasized that section 10(3-B) only provides the limitation period and does not mandate a specific order for dismissal due to limitation. Drawing on the Supreme Court's ruling in Mela Ram and Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, the court asserted that an order dismissing an appeal as time-barred is still considered an order under the relevant section. Therefore, the court held that the question of limitation could be considered a question of law arising from an order passed under section 10(3)(i) of the Act, allowing for a reference to the High Court under section 11.

In conclusion, the court answered the referred question by affirming that the dismissal of a revision application as time-barred could be a question of law under the Act, permitting a reference to the High Court. The judges, SATISH CHANDRA, and GULATI, concurred with this decision, and the reference was answered accordingly.