9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter the period of limitation. Mr. Bhagwati Pershad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that rule 66(2) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), which provides for limitation for filing of application for revision is ultra vires the Act. The contention is that under the power to make rules as per section 26 of the Act, the Chief Commissioner had no authority to lay down the period of limitation for filing of the applications covered under sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Act. Section 20 of the Act provides for appeals, revisions and reviews under the Act. The relevant provision under which application for revision can be entertained is contained in sub-section (3) of that section. That ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation by way of revision had been filed by it before the Commissioner of Sales Tax within the period prescribed. Thereafter the second revision application was filed to the Chief Commissioner but beyond the period of limitation. The Financial Commissioner, who has been delegated the powers of the Chief Commissioner, had no occasion to consider the question of extension of time or condonation of delay as no application was filed before him along with the revision application and hence the impugned order. In a nutshell, the contention of the petitioner is that the above-quoted sub-rule which lays down the time-limit for filing of application for revision is without jurisdiction as under section 26 of the Act such a rule cannot be framed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t applications for revision have specifically been mentioned under item (p) of sub-section (2) of section 26 wherein no time-limit has been provided. It is his contention that provision wherein limitation has been laid is not for carrying out the purposes of the Act. In my view the submission is misconceived. The rule has been framed for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The application seeking revision having been provided in sub-section (3) of section 20 the time within which it has to be filed must specifically be laid down. This is also the requirement of subsection (2)(r) of section 26. By sub-rule (2) of rule 66 this is exactly what has been achieved. I hold that the rule is intra vires and is also legal. No other point was urged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
