9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (5) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als with those questions, which the Tribunal refused to refer to this Court for opinion. 2.. At the commencement of the hearing a preliminary objection was raised by Mr. G.K. Misra for the Sales Tax Department on the ground of limitation. The order of the Tribunal was passed on 25th August, 1958, whereas these applications were filed on 26th September, 1958, two days after the expiry of the period of thirty days from the date of refusal, as required by section 24(2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. This preliminary point was argued by counsel for both sides. 3.. Prior to 1957 there was only a revisional authority over the decisions of subordinate Sales Tax Authorities and that authority was given the power to make a reference under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of judgments or orders. When a judgment or order is pronounced by such authorities.it is merely communicated to the parties. Rule 73 may also be quoted: "73. Three copies of every order under section 23 or under section 24 passed by the Tribunal shall be forwarded to the Commissioner as soon as practicable. A copy of it shall also be supplied free of cost and without application to the other party to the appeal or application for reference." 4.. The circumstances under which the Tribunal's orders were passed on 25th August, 1958, will be clear from the certified copies of his orders dated 5th August, 1958, 20th August, 1958, and 25th August, 1958, which have been filed by the petitioner himself. It will be noticed that on 5th August, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n or through an Advocate and consequently he could not know that the case was adjourned to 25th August, 1958. There is no affidavit in support of this statement. On the other hand in the affidavit filed by him before this Court, on 4th November, 1958, this fact was suppressed. The affidavit merely stated that until the receipt of the Tribunal's order (25th August, 1958), on 2nd September, 1958, he did not know anything about the contents of that order. Even if I accept the statement of the petitioner that he did not appear before the Tribunal on the 20th August, 1958, that would not help him in any way. It was his own fault that he did not appear before the Tribunal on that date, knowing fully well that the case had been fixed for delivery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s given a right to resort to a particular remedy to get rid of an adverse order within a prescribed time, the limitation should not be computed from a date earlier than that on which the party aggrieved actually knew of the order or had an opportunity of knowing that order and therefore must be presumed to have had knowledge of that order. Here as already pointed out the petitioner had ample opportunities of knowing the contents of the order of the Tribunal on the date of the order, i.e., 25th August, 1958. Similarly Satrughan Mall v. Revenue Commissioner, Orissa A.I.R. 1956 Orissa 34., refers to an order under the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Act passed by the Commissioner in exercise of his revisional powers though that authority was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
