9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (10) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... carrying on business under the jurisdiction of the Patna Urban Circle also, and a notice under section 13(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, was given to him to file returns and to produce his books of account. The assessee, however, did not submit his returns or produce his account books, and, on the 30th of November, 1951, he was assessed by the Assistant Superintendent of Sales Tax by one order for the years 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1950-51, the taxable turnover being Rs. 1,03,214, Rs. 1,09,824 and Rs. 1,66,372, respectively, the total coming to Rs. 3,79,410. The total tax payable on the above amount was assessed at Rs. 11,599, and a total penalty of Rs. 11,401 was imposed for the period in question for the failure of the assessee to apply for registration of his business in the Patna Urban Circle and for his having deliberately failed to comply with the terms of the notice for filing of the returns and producing of the account books. A notice of demand was issued on the 15th of December, 1951, and it was received by the assessee on the 18th of December, 1951. He, thereafter, applied for a certified copy of the assessment order on the 29th of January, 1952, and the copy was deliv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 25(2)(b) of the Act was then made to this Court by the assessee with a prayer to require the Board of Revenue to refer certain questions of law to this Court for decision, and, at the direction of this Court, the Board of Revenue has, under section 25(3) of the Act, referred the following questions of law to this Court for its decision: "(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner could be legally taxed under section 13(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act for the period from the 1st of April, 1948, to the 31st of March, 1951, by the Sales Tax Officer, Patna Urban Circle. (2) Whether in disposing of the revision application filed by the assessee the Board of Revenue should have gone into and decided the question of legality of the assessment of sales tax upon the assessee." The contention put forward by the assessee on the merit of the case is that he has been assessed twice over for the same taxable turnover both in the Urban as well as in the Rural Circles, and this contention is the subject-matter of the first question referred to this Court. But before that question could be gone into, it is necessary to deal with the second question, the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 2nd of November, 1953, that that medical certificate appeared to him to have been freshly written. He also observed that the application for copy was made during the period the assessee alleged to have been ill. He, therefore, did not accept the explanation of the assessee for the delay in presenting the appeal and rejected the same as being time-barred. The Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax further observed that the delay in filing of the appeal was not due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee inasmuch as even the application for obtaining the certified copy of the assessment order was made only about three days before the last day for filing the appeal. In other words, he took the view that the assessee was not diligent in taking steps for prosecuting the appeal, and, therefore, he could not be said to have been prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The Board of Revenue also in its resolution on the revision application held that the plea of illness taken by the assessee before the appellate Court had no substance. Apart from the above ground, it also agreed with the appellate Court in respect of the unjustified delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If, however, it appears that an applicant is not diligent but is guilty of laches and negligence and does not take appropriate steps for pursuing his remedy till about the close of the period prescribed for an action to be taken, he cannot claim to have the delay condoned if per chance or by accident he happened to have exceeded the prescribed period in taking the proper steps. In such a case he must thank himself and must be prepared always to take the risk of having his remedy barred without expecting exercise of any discretion by a Court in his favour in condoning the delay. The view that I have taken gains support from a Bench decision of this Court in Jahar Mahal v. G.M. Pritchard A.I.R. 1919 Pat. 503. The following observation of Dawson Miller, C.J., who gave the leading judgment in that case, is very important in this connection: "It is a matter which is continually being brought to the notice of the Courts in this country, and that is this: It almost invariably happens that one party or the other intending to appeal or to take some other steps in the course of an action for which a time limit is prescribed by the rules, waits until the very last moment before taking that st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufficient cause for the failure to file the appeal within time, it exhibited nothing but negligence of a kind which the Courts ought not to condone and encourage. The principle of this case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. The above view was re-affirmed by the Nagpur High Court in Hakimia v. J.C. Gammon A.I.R. 1930 Nag. 121. A Bench of the Nagpur High Court in Pandit Krishna Rao Dattatraya Phalke Trimbak A.I.R. 1938 Nag. 156. held the law on the subject to be as follows: "The Court while exercising the discretion vested in it will necessarily look into the conduct of the appellant and will only exercise its discretion in favour of a person who is found to be diligent and not in favour of one who is guilty of laches or negligence." In Madan Gopal v. Malawa Ram A.I.R. 1923 Lah. 96. also it was held that a Court is not bound to show indulgence to a litigant who is not prompt in seeking his remedy. It is, therefore, manifest that, even if the explanation given by the assessee in this case about his illness be accepted, on the principles enunciated in the cases referred to above he is not entitled to be shown any indulgence as he has been guilty of wilful laches ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
