9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal, was served on the State Representative on September 29, 1986 and upon the assessing authority on October 17, 1986. The fresh assessment in pursuance of the remand order was made on June 6, 1987 which was again challenged unsuccessfully in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (J) who dismissed the appeal. However, in the second appeal, the Sales Tax Tribunal again set aside the reassessment order for fresh assessment by its order dated May 1, 1989. It is against this order that the present revision has been preferred. 3.. It may be observed that one of the questions canvassed before the Appellate Tribunal was that reassessment order which was passed in remand proceedings, was barred by the time inasmuch as it was not made within the stipulated period of one year of the service of the remand order on the State Representative which as already stated, was served on September 29, 1986. The Appellate Tribunal repelled that contention and dismissed the appeal so far that point was concerned. It took the view that the period of one year within which the reassessment order could have been made, had to be computed from the date a copy of the order by the Tribunal was received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce on sub-rule (9) of rule 68 of the Rules, it was also submitted that the legal fiction envisaged thereunder, should be construed in a manner that the receipt of a copy of the order of the Tribunal by the State Representative, was not only a deemed service on the Commissioner but also a deemed service of the order of the Tribunal upon the concerned assessing authority. 6.. It may be stated that rule 68 of the Rules provides for a procedure for disposal of appeal by the appellate authority or the Tribunal. Sub-rule (7) of rule 68 of the Rules, inter alia, provides that copy of every order under section 10 (order passed by the Tribunal) shall be delivered to or served on the parties concerned free of charge. It is pertinent to mention that in an appeal filed before the Sales Tax Tribunal by an assessee, the Commissioner of Sales Tax is arrayed as a respondent or an opposite party. Sub-rule (9) of rule 68 of the Rules contemplates that the provisions of rules 77 and 77-A of the Rules shall mutatis mutandis, apply to service of notice, summons order, etc., under that rule. There is a proviso attached to that sub-rule which reads: "............Provided that service on the State Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod of time, lest they should be immortal, while men are mortal." 10.. In Nagendra Nath Dey v. Suresh Chandra Dey AIR 1932 PC 165, the Privy Council has held: "The fixation of periods of limitation must always be to some extent arbitrary, and may frequently result in hardship. But in construing such provisions equitable considerations are out of place, and the strict grammatical meaning of the words is, their Lordships think, the only safe guide." 11.. In B.N. Muttoo v. Dr. T.K. Nandi AIR 1979 SC 460, the Supreme Court has held: "The court has to determine the intention as expressed by the words used. If the words of statutes are themselves precise and unambiguous then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their ordinary and natural sense. The words themselves alone do in such a case best declare the intention of the lawgiver." 12.. It is apparent from the above that when language is plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning no question of construction of a statute arises, for the Act speaks for itself. Inconvenience or hardship cannot alter the meaning of the language employed by the Legislature if such a meaning is clear on the face of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defined in the interpretation clause, prima facie that definition governs whenever that word or phrase is used in the body of statute. However, where the context makes the definition clause inapplicable, a defined word when used in the body of the statute, may have to be given a meaning different from that contained in the interpretation clause. But where there is no ambiguity in the language of the section, as in the present case, there is no scope for giving a different meaning to the expressions "assessing authority", "Commissioner" and the "State Representative" as defined under the Act or the Rules made thereunder. 14.. The contention that under rule 68 of the Rules, copy of every order passed by the Tribunal was required to be served on the concerned party free of charge and the service of the order of the Tribunal should be deemed to be service on the assessing authority, is without any merit. The assessing authority is not a party in the appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, although its order may be under challenge before the Tribunal. As already pointed out in an appeal filed by an assessee, it is the Commissioner who is the opposite party. Under the proviso to sub-rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
