Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (9) TMI 395

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion (3) or sub-section (6) of section 36 is served in the manner prescribed, any person who objects to such order or the Deputy Commissioner may prefer a petition to the High Court on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal has either decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law. The proviso to this section as it was originally enacted in 1959, read as follows: "Provided that the High Court may admit a petition preferred after the period of ninety days aforesaid if it is satisfied that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not preferring the petition within the said period." Calculating the period of ninety days as provided under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the provisions of the Limitation Act, the last .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cal law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 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." Thus, under the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, the applicability of section 5 to any proceedings under special or local law was specifically excluded, but under the Limitation Act, 1963, unless the speci .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cles Act, 1939. Section 58 of the said Act provided that a permit may be renewed on an application made for such purposes, provided that the application for renewal of a permit shall be made (a) in the case of stage carriage permit or public carrier's permit, not less than 120 days before the date of its expiry; and (b) in any other case not less than 60 days before the date of its expiry. Sub-section (3) of that section further provided that: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the first proviso to sub- section (2), the Regional Transport Authority may entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in the said proviso for the making of such an application, if the application is made not more than 15 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act. The only provision of the Act sought to be pressed into service for this purpose was sub-section (3). Does sub-section (3) expressly exclude further extension of time under section 5? If it does, then section 5 cannot be availed of by the appellant for condonation of the delay. Sub-section (3) in so many terms says that the Regional Transport Authority may condone the delay in making of an application for renewal and entertain it on merits provided the delay is of not more than 15 days. This clearly means that if the application for renewal is beyond time by more than 15 days, the Regional Transport Authority shall not be entitled to entertain it, or in other words, it shall have no power to condone the delay. There is thus an express .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of limitation in filing the revision under section 10(1) when one copy of the appellate order was served on the dealer under the provisions of the Act. The Supreme Court held that there is nothing in the U.P. Sales Tax Act, expressly excluding section 12(2) of the Limitation Act for filing a revision. The learned judges further held that merely because a copy of the order has to be served on the parties, by the Tribunal, the time taken for supply of the certified copy to the revision petitioner could not be excluded. It was held that section 12(2) would be applicable in computing the period of limitation for filing a revision. As may be seen from the facts, this has no application at all to the present case. The decision in Rathinasamy .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates