9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the delivery of applications to the post office for transmission to the Appellate Tribunal should be treated as the presentation of the applications for reference under Section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone the delay in presenting the applications for reference under Section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Presentation of Applications by Registered Post The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Kerala, contended that the applications for reference under Section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, should be considered as submitted within time if they were delivered to the post office for transmission to the Appellate Tribunal. The applications were sent by registered post on December 14, 1976, but were received by the Tribunal on December 20, 1976, after the deadline of December 16, 1976. Regulation 20 of the Appellate Tribunal's regulations, made under Section 16(4) of the Act, stipulates that every memorandum of appeal, application, and other documents can be presented in person or sent by registered post. Clause (2) of Regulation 20 specifies that a memorandum of appeal sent by registered post is deemed presented on the day it is received by the Tribunal. Regulation 28(2) extends the applicability of Regulation 20 to applications under Section 60(1) of the Act. Therefore, the applications were deemed presented only when received by the Tribunal, not when dispatched by registered post. Consequently, the applications were submitted beyond the statutory deadline, and no direction could be issued to treat them as submitted within time. Issue 2: Jurisdiction to Condon Delay The Commissioner argued that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to condone the delay under Section 5 read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act states that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply to any special or local law unless expressly excluded. Section 5 allows for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. The Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Madan Lal Das & Sons [1976] 38 STC 543 was cited, where it was held that Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act applies to revisions under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. However, this decision pertained to the exclusion of time taken to obtain a copy of the appellate order and did not address the condonation of delay under Section 5. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Parson Tools and Plants [1975] 35 STC 413 clarified that Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act do not apply to tribunals, as they are not courts. The Kerala High Court's Full Bench decision in Jokkim Fernandez v. Amina Kunhi Umma [1973] KLT 138 also held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings before tribunals or authorities designated as persona designata. Section 69 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act specifically excludes the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act to proceedings under the Act, indicating that the Act is a self-contained code regarding limitation periods. Therefore, the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing applications for reference under Section 60(1) of the Act. Conclusion The High Court dismissed the original petitions, holding that the applications were not presented within the statutory time limit and that the Appellate Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to condone the delay in presenting the applications for reference under Section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. There was no order as to costs.
|
