9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (1) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sales Tax as required under rule 73 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules (hereinafter called the "Rules "). Under section 24(1) of the Act, within sixty days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order of the Tribunal made under sub-section (3) of section 23 affecting any liability of any dealer to pay tax, such dealer or, as the case may be, the State Government, is entitled to make an application in writing to the Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of the appellate order. According to the petitioner, the application under section 24(1) of the Act was due to be filed on or before 14th May, 1973, but it was actually filed on 30th May, 1973, along with an application for condonation of delay under section 5 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rved: "A tribunal is not necessarily a 'court' in the strict sense because (1) it gives a final decision, nor (2) because it hears witnesses on oath, nor (3) because two or more contending parties appear before it between whom it has to decide, nor (4) because it gives a decision which affects the rights of subjects, nor (5) because there is an appeal to a court, nor (6) because it is a body to which a matter is referred by another body. An administrative tribunal may act judicially, but still remain an administrative tribunal as distinguished from a court." The ultimate conclusion reached in this court was that the tribunals set up under the Act were not "courts". The Supreme Court upheld this conclusion of Panigrahi, C.J., In the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law............." In the old Limitation Act of 1908, sub-section (2) of section 29 was differently worded and ran thus: "Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the First Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply, as if such period were pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating to reference applications that by the medium of sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act, section 5 is not made applicable to such a proceeding. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel relies upon some authorities which we shall presently deal with. The first case cited by the learned standing counsel Is that of Imperiai Bucket Co. v. Smt. Bhagwati BasakA.I.R. 1954 Cal. 520. The court was dealing with the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1950. Examining the applicability of section 29(2)(a) of the Limitation Act of 1908 to such a proceeding, the court said: "My conclusion, therefore, is that the rules of construction referred to above do not justify the court in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion by the Indian Limitation (Amendment) Act (Act 10 of 1922). My conclusion, therefore, is that the time for filing the appeal should be extended by applying the provisions of section 12, Limitation Act." That section 12 of the Limitation Act is applicable was also decided in this court in the case of Bharat Sabaigrass Ltd. v. Collector of Commercial Taxes[1952] 3 S.T.C. 453. and in the Punjab High Court in the case of Chiranji Lal Bros. v. State of Delhi[1966] 18 S.T.C. 240. The point in the Punjab case(1) was as to whether the time taken for obtaining a certified copy of the impugned order was available to be added to the period of limitation prescribed for filing of the revision. Rule 62 of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951, required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also refer to a Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court not cited by counsel for parties in the case of Sunit Pramanik v. Santipur Industries Co-operative SocietyA.I.R. 1973 Cal. 364. The point for examination before the court was the application of the provisions of the Limitation Act to an appeal under the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act through the medium of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act of 1963. The court concluded: "It is clear, therefore, that by reason of sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act of 1963, the period of limitation prescribed by the Co-operative Societies Act, which we have referred to above, shall be deemed to be a period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act. And the provisions of sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
