1981 (6) TMI 121 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the revision application sent by registered post within the period of limitation is deemed to be presented within the prescribed period.
2. The interpretation of the terms "made within" and "presented within" under Section 39(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and Rule 57 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959.
3. The role of the post office as an agent for the revising authority.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the revision application sent by registered post within the period of limitation is deemed to be presented within the prescribed period.
The petitioner argued that the revision application should be considered as presented within the limitation period if it was sent by registered post within that period. The petitioner relied on the interpretation that the postal authorities act as agents of the department once the application is handed over to them. The petitioner cited the House of Lords' decision in Badische Anilin Und Soda Fabrik v. Basle Chemical Works, Bindschedler [1898] AC 200 to support this argument.

However, the revising authority dismissed the revision on the ground that it was not received within the period of limitation. The revising authority's stance was that the application must reach the authority before the limitation period expires, regardless of when it was sent.

2. The interpretation of the terms "made within" and "presented within" under Section 39(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and Rule 57 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959.
Section 39(1) of the Act requires that the application for revision be "made within the prescribed period from the date of the order." Rule 57(4) states that an application for revision "shall be presented within twelve months from the date of the order." Rule 57(5) provides that the application for revision "shall either be presented to the revising authority by the applicant or his agent or sent to such authority by registered post."

The majority opinion, consisting of Honourable Mishra, J., and Honourable the Chief Justice, G.P. Singh, held that the terms "made within" and "presented within" have the same meaning. The application must be received by the revising authority within twelve months from the date of the order. The act of sending by registered post does not complete the presentation until the application is received by the authority.

3. The role of the post office as an agent for the revising authority.
The petitioner contended that the post office should be considered an agent of the revising authority. However, Honourable Mishra, J., and the majority opinion disagreed. They held that the post office is not an agent of the revising authority for the purposes of presenting a revision application. The date of receipt by the revising authority is the date of presentation, not the date of posting. This interpretation aligns with the Supreme Court's decision in F.N. Roy v. Collector of Customs AIR 1957 SC 648, which held that the date of filing an appeal is the date of its receipt by the appellate authority, not the date of posting.

Conclusion:
The majority opinion dismissed the petition, holding that the revision application was barred by limitation. The application must be received by the revising authority within the prescribed period to be considered timely. The post office is not an agent of the revising authority, and the date of receipt is crucial. The security amount was ordered to be refunded to the petitioner.