9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (6) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be, as far as possible, in form XXVII and shall be presented within 12 months from the date of the order against which it is filed. Under sub-rule (5) of rule 57, the applicant is given a choice either to present it himself or through his authorised agent or to send it by registered post to such an authority. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the revision application, when sent by registered post, must be sent in such a manner that it ought to reach the revising authority before the period of limitation expired or whether it was enough if the revision application was given to the postal authorities within the period of limitation for being sent to the revising authority and when such an application was given to the postal authorities within the period of limitation it was inconsequential as to when it reached the revising authority. 3.. The Board relied on its decision in Hukumat Rai v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1964 RN 148. The Board was of the view that the key word in the section is "filed". The revision cannot be taken to have been filed unless it reaches the authority concerned. It was then observed that the provision of sending by post was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no similar provision like sub-rule (2) of rule 7 in the Sales Tax Act or the Rules framed thereunder. The rules being different it would not be permissible to import the ratio of the above income-tax case while interpreting the sales tax scheme. 7.. What the Act and the Rules envisage is presentation of the memorandum of revision. It may be presented before the revising authority or it may be sent by registered post. Therefore, the terminus ad quem would not be when the revision application reaches the revising authority, but it would be when it was given to the postal authorities, and was accepted by them for being sent. If a contrary view is taken, the limitation available for sending the revision application by post would be reduced in those cases where it was intended to be sent by registered post. The rules provide that the revision application should be presented within 12 months. Sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 57 must be construed harmoniously. Sub-rule (4) prescribes the period of limitation, while sub-rule (5) lays down the mode of presentation. It appears to us that when the Act and the Rules envisage the sending of the revision application by registered post, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be deemed to have been presented to the revising authority the day when it was sent by registered post as the post office should be regarded as an agent of such authority within the contemplation of sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 57 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (for short "the M.P. Rules"). 4.. The petition is resisted by respondent No. 1 on the ground that the revision will be deemed to have been made to the revising authority only on the date it is received by such authority and not when it was sent by registered post; and that the post office has not been authorised to receive the revision applications on behalf of the revising authority. 5.. By section 39(1), the Act inter alia provides as under: "The Commissioner may, either of his own motion or on application by a dealer or person made within the prescribed period from the date of the order, call for the record of the proceeding in which any order was passed, and on receipt of the record may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made, as he considers necessary and subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order thereon, not being an order prejudicial to the dealer or person as he th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot appear to be any legal impediment in extending and applying the ratio of the case of F.N. Roy AIR 1957 SC 648 to the present situation. 7.. The object of sub-rule (5) of rule 57 in prescribing sending of revision application by registered post as one of the modes of its submission, appears to be merely to make that mode a permissible mode. In the absence of such an enabling rule, a revision application could not be sent by registered post. The "presentation" in its accepted connotation means submission to the court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf. No provision has been shown whereby a post office may be regarded to have been appointed by or for the revising authority as a functionary in this behalf. Acceptance of contention of the petitioner will involve rewriting of the rule and/or importing something more in it. It is law well-settled that a construction which involves rewriting or importing into an existing provision has to be avoided. Had the intention of the framers of the rules been to provide so, rule 57(5) of the M.P. Rules would have been differently worded. On the language employed therein, the construction suggested on behalf of the petitioner does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9(1) and sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 57 appears to be purposeful. In the case of resort to the first two of the three permissible modes of submission of revision stated above, namely, in case of presentation by the applicant or through his agent, the revision will be deemed to have been duly filed only on the day it is presented to the revising authority, whereas in the case of resort to the third method, namely, that of sending by registered post, the act of registration will be taken to mark the beginning of the process of the revision application being carried to the revising authority. This process is completed on the day it is received by such authority. It is on the day of such receipt that the revision application will be deemed to have been made to the revising authority. Letters have been known to be delayed for months in the post. There may be even cases where letters never reach the addressee. If revision is regarded to be duly presented on the day it is sent by registered cover and the post office is regarded as the agent of the revising authority for the purposes of presentation of revision application, the applicant may even after years prove that he had made the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sa 187 (FB). 11.. For the reasons stated above, with due deference to the learned Judges who decided the case of Satish Chandra Gupta [1971] 28 STC 740, I regret my inability to agree with the view taken therein. Even if reliance on the ratio of cases on construction of rule 7(2) of the Income-tax Rules be regarded to be not available for construing provisions of the Act and the M.P. Rules, in view of the language employed in section 39(1) and sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 57 of the M.P. Rules and their scheme, the revision application cannot be regarded to have been presented to the revising authority on the day it is handed over to a post office under a registered cover for being taken to such authority, as discussed above. In this case, the petitioner appears to have sought reliance on the ratio of Badische Anilin Und Soda Fabrik v. Basle Chemical Works, Bindschedler [1898] AC 200. In that case, "a trader in England ordered goods from a foreign manufacturer in Switzerland to be sent by post to England. The manufacturer addressed the goods to the trader in England and delivered them to the Swiss Post Office, by whom they were forwarded to England. The goods were manufactured ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, which deals with revisions, requires that the application for revision be "made within the prescribed period from the date of the order". The period is prescribed by rule 57 of the Rules made under the Act. Sub-rule (4) of rule 57 provides that an application for revision "shall be presented within twelve months from the date of the order". Sub-rule (5) of rule 57 then provides that the application for revision "shall either be presented to the revising authority by the applicant or his agent or sent to such authority by registered post". 4.. Honourable Dube, J., is of the opinion that if a revision application is sent by registered post within the period of limitation, it should be deemed to be made within the prescribed period under section 39(1) even though it was received by the revising authority after the expiry of the period of limitation. Honourable Mishra, J., is, however, of the view that sub-rule (5) of rule 57 only enables the applicant to send the revision application by registered post and that the revision application must be deemed to have been made or presented on the date when it is received by the revising authority and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
