1988 (3) TMI 424 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation period for filing an application.
2. Date of communication versus date of the order.
3. Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding limitation.
4. Judicial precedents on limitation and communication of orders.
5. Principles of justice and fair play in statutory interpretation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation Period for Filing an Application:
The primary issue was whether the limitation period for filing an application under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, begins from the date of the order or from the date of its communication to the applicant. The court noted that the matter was reported as barred by limitation since it was filed beyond forty-five days from the passing of the order.

2. Date of Communication Versus Date of the Order:
The court examined whether the limitation period should be computed from the date the order was made or from when it was communicated. The court referenced earlier decisions, such as Doma Sao Kishun Lal v. State of Bihar and State of Bihar v. Telu Ram Jain, which held that the limitation period starts from the date of the order's passing, not its communication.

3. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions Regarding Limitation:
The court discussed the interpretation of Section 21 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, and similar provisions in other statutes. It emphasized that in the absence of a provision for excluding the time taken to obtain a copy of the order, the limitation period begins from the date of the order's passing. The court also referred to the Bihar Commercial Taxes Regulation, 1979, which mandates the communication of the order after it is signed.

4. Judicial Precedents on Limitation and Communication of Orders:
The court reviewed various precedents, including:
- Firm of Mohan Lal Hardeo Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa: Held that "passing of the order" does not mean its communication.
- O.A.O.A.M. Muthiah Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras: Argued that the date of the order should be when it is communicated or pronounced.
- Govindji v. Commissioner of Sales Tax: Suggested that limitation should start from the date the order is communicated if the party was not present.
- Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer: Stated that the limitation period should start from when the order is communicated or known to the party.
- Madan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh: Emphasized the principle that a party must have notice of an order affecting their rights.
- Trustees of Port of Bombay v. Premier Automobiles Ltd.: Discussed the accrual of the cause of action and the importance of the date of knowledge.
- State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram and State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum: Highlighted that an order is effective only upon communication.

5. Principles of Justice and Fair Play in Statutory Interpretation:
The court underscored that statutes should be interpreted to ensure justice and fair play. It cited the principle from Boon v. Howard that if statutory language can be reasonably interpreted in more than one way, the interpretation that avoids unreasonable outcomes should prevail. The court concluded that the limitation period should not start until the affected party has actual or constructive knowledge of the order.

Conclusion:
The court determined that the limitation period for filing the application should begin from the date of communication of the order, not the date of its passing. The court rejected the Stamp Reporter's view and deemed the tax case to have been filed within the prescribed time limit. The court also suggested that the Tribunal should adopt a practice of fixing a date for judgment and communicating it to the parties to avoid similar issues in the future.