1970 (4) TMI 147 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the revision filed by the assessee is time-barred under the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
2. Interpretation of the provisions of Rule 77 and Rule 70 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules regarding service and communication of orders in appeal or revision.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case was whether the revision filed by the assessee was time-barred. The revision was dismissed by the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The appellate order was served on the counsel of the assessee on 30th August, 1966, and the revision was filed on 1st March, 1968. The judge held that service on the counsel was considered as service on the assessee, and the revision should have been filed within one year of the appellate order. The application for condonation of delay was also dismissed as it lacked an affidavit. The court focused on whether the revision was filed within the stipulated time under Sub-section (3-B) of Section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

2. The interpretation of Rule 77 and Rule 70 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules was crucial in determining the validity of the revision filing. Rule 77 specifies the modes of service of any notice, summons, or order under the Act, allowing service by giving or tendering a copy to the dealer's agent. The court found that service on the counsel, who was authorized by the assessee to act on his behalf, constituted valid service on the assessee. On the other hand, Rule 70 mandates the communication of orders in appeal or revision to the concerned parties, without specifically addressing service. The court emphasized that Rule 77, being a specific rule dealing with service modes, would prevail over the general provision of Rule 70 regarding order communication. The judgment highlighted the importance of the precise language used in Sub-section (3-B) of Section 10, focusing on the term "service of the order" to determine the commencement of the limitation period.

In conclusion, the court answered the question of whether the revision was time-barred in the affirmative, ruling against the assessee and in favor of the department. The Commissioner of Sales Tax was awarded costs, and the learned counsel's fee for the department was also assessed. The judgment underscored the significance of adherence to procedural rules and timely filings in tax matters, emphasizing the importance of specific provisions governing service and communication of orders in legal proceedings.