9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at "subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4) may apply for a review of the order to the High Court and the High Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit". This provision has given a further remedy to the assessee for filing review application. The procedure which has to be followed is under the Rules and Regulations of the High Court. Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the "judgment" means the statement given by the Judge of the ground of a decree or order. Section 2(14) defines "order", means formal expression of any decision of a civil court, which is not a decree. From a combined reading of both the provisions, it would be evident that if the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1951, were considered and it was observed that "appeal under section 116A(1) by fiction is equated with an appeal filed under the Code of Civil Procedure in the matter of not only the exercise of the power, jurisdiction and authority but also in the matter of procedure to be followed from the date of receipt of the appeal to its final disposal". It is thus an appeal in respect of which the Limitation Act has prescribed a period of limitation under section 156 of the First Schedule. But the Special Act, namely, the Act of 1951 has prescribed by section 116A(3) a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the First Schedule to the Limitation Act within the meaning of article 29(2) of the Limitation Act and so, secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was replaced by Act No. 4 of 1877. Section 6 of this Act read: "When by any special or local law now or hereafter in force in British India, a period of limitation is specially prescribed for any suit, appeal or application, nothing herein contained shall affect or alter the period so prescribed." The same provision was retained in the Limitation Act 9 of 1908 but it was amended in the year 1922 in the present form. Before the amendment of 1922, there was a difference of view on the following questions, namely, (1) whether the general provisions of the Limitation Act, where the word "prescribed" alone without reference to any Act, was used or even where that word was not used, would be applicable to special or local laws, and (2) whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o impose a condition for the application of sub-section (2) of section 29, namely, that a period of limitation should have been expressly prescribed by the First Schedule to the Limitation Act in respect of a suit or appeal governed by the special or local law? There was no occasion for such a departure. To put it in other words, apart from resolving the conflict, did the Legislature intend to exclude a particular category of proceedings governed by special or local laws from the operation of the benefit conferred by sub-section (2) of section 29? No justification was suggested for such a departure and we find none. From a reading of the entire judgment it would be evident that the provisions of the Limitation Act would be applicable and n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
