1985 (7) TMI 338 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941; Validity of rule 66(2) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951; Jurisdiction of Chief Commissioner to lay down period of limitation for filing revision applications.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner dismissing their application as time-barred under section 20(3) of the Act. The contention was that rule 66(2) of the Rules, providing for the limitation period, exceeded the Chief Commissioner's rule-making authority under section 26 of the Act. The relevant provision for revision applications is in section 20(3), allowing the Commissioner or Chief Commissioner to revise assessments or orders. The Rules, made under section 26 by the Chief Commissioner, cover appeals and revisions in rules 60 to 70, with sub-rule (2) of rule 66 setting the time limits for filing revision applications.

The petitioner argued that the rule on limitation was without jurisdiction under section 26 of the Act. Section 26 empowers the Chief Commissioner to make rules for Act's purposes, including matters like procedures for appeals and revisions. The respondents contended that rule 66(2) was essential for fulfilling the Act's purposes, specifically under section 26(2)(r), which mandates setting time limits for applications. They emphasized section 20(3), allowing revisions on application, including by the Chief Commissioner.

The court found the petitioner's argument misconceived, holding that rule 66(2) was within the rule-making power and necessary for the Act's purposes. It noted that setting a time limit for filing revision applications, as done in sub-rule (2) of rule 66, was a requirement of section 26(2)(r). The court concluded that the rule was intra vires and legal, dismissing the writ petition. No costs were awarded in the judgment.