9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (7) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... modified, so as to avoid such inconvenience, but no further." It is the application of the above principle that is called for in this revision which is directed at the instance of the assessee-dealer against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated August 17, 1987, made in Tribunal Appeal No. 16 of 1983. The question raised in this revision relates to interpretation of sub-section (6) of section 20 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"). The facts are a few and simple. The petitioner-assessee is a dealer in cement, registered under the Act. For the assessment year 1971-72 the Commercial Tax Officer, by his order of assessment dated August 17, 1972, allowed exemption on a [Extracted from the book-"Maxwe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod of limitation. Sri S.R. Ashok, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that subsection (6) of section 20 cannot be so interpreted as to take the benefit of a longer period than the one during which the revision proceedings were deferred as it would not only be contrary to the intention of the Legislature but would also lead to an anomalous situation. The learned Government Pleader, however, submits that the principle of liberal interpretation should be applied to the facts of this case and in so doing if the period of limitation gets extended, the benefit cannot be denied to the Revenue and that is what the Tribunal had done, as such the revision has to be dismissed. To appreciate the contention raised before us, it woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tay order was in force or such appeal or proceeding was pending shall be excluded in computing the period of four years specified in this section for the purposes of exercising the power under this section." The fundamental principle of interpretation of a statute is to discover the intention of the Legislature and to give effect to it. The scheme of section 20, extracted above, inter alia, suggests that in case the revisional authority proposes to exercise jurisdiction under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 20, it should do so within such period not exceeding four years from the date on which the order was served on the dealer. In a series of decisions of this Court, the last of which we may note here (State of Andhra Pradesh v. Toshi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evision to save the order from the mischief of sub-section (3) of section 20 but the order of revision was passed on June 19, 1982, that is after about 3 years and 10 months. The writ petition came to be filed after about 4 years of the passing of the order of assessment and after three years of the order of deferment. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, the order should have been passed within 5 months and 5 days of the dismissal of the writ petition on December 9, 1981, that is, on or before January 13, 1982 but, in fact, it was passed on June 19, 1982, therefore, the revisional order was beyond limitation. But, if the contention of the learned Government Pleader were to be accepted, the revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be. For this purpose it enables the authority to defer the revisional proceedings. It applied the same principle as in the case of grant of stay order, to this situation and provided that the period taken in the said appeal or stay proceeding shall be excluded. In our view, the Legislature only wanted to extend the period of limitation by the period during which the authority was disabled from proceeding with the revision. It did not, in our view, intend to extend the period of limitation by making sub-section (3) of section 20 nugatory. If that is the intention and we think it to be so, then giving effect to the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the whole period taken for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es a manifestly unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature, the court might modify the language used by the Legislature so as to achieve the intention of the Legislature and produce a rational result." The period of limitation in any statute confers a very valuable right on any litigant. Interpreting the provision, as contended by the learned Government Pleader, would take away that right of the limitation from the litigant and thus produces unjust result. In this view of the matter we are unable to sustain the order under revision. The order of the Tribunal dated August 17, 1987, in Tribunal Appeal No. 16 of 1983 is set aside and the order of revision passed by the Deputy Commissioner is held to be beyond the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
