9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (2) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 27th September, 1968, the date when the order was passed, rejected the application as being time-barred. An appeal was filed by the assessee, and his contention was that the limitation should be counted not from the date when the order was passed by the assessing authority but from the date it was served on him. This contention was accepted by the appellate authority, who remanded the case to the Sales Tax Officer. The Commissioner of Sales Tax thereupon filed a revision before the revising authority. The revision failed and, hence, this reference in which the following question of law has been referred: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Additional Revising Authority, Meerut, was legally justified in h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition OfficerA.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1500. In that case, the question arose as to the point of time when the limitation would start running for making an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of an award given by the Land Acquisition Officer. There was no indication in the Act that the award should be served on the landholder. Literally read, the provisions of section 18 indicated that the limitation should be counted from the date of the award. It was held that as the award adversely affected the rights of the owner of the property, the limitation should be counted from the date when the award was either communicated to the party or when it became known to him either a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or from the date when he had opportunity of knowing the contents of the order fully. Sri V.D. Singh, the standing counsel, drew my attention to the two decisions of this Court in cases arising under section 33-A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The provisions regarding limitation contained therein are similar to the present provision in which the view has been taken that the limitation for filing a revision would start running from the date when the order was passed. These decisions are reported in Haji Ghulam Hussain Sons v. Commissioner, Income-tax, U.P.[1957] 31 I.T.R. 231., and Ramgopal Ram Prasad v. Income-tax Officer, Kanpur[1962] 46 I.T.R. 529. In view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court referred to earlier, it is not pos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
