1976 (9) TMI 135 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court's Time Exclusion Ruling Upheld in Revision Petition Limitation

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming the exclusion of time spent obtaining a copy of the order in computing the limitation period ... Whether the time taken by the dealer in obtaining another copy of the impugned appellate order could be excluded for the purpose of limitation for filing revision under section 10(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act when one copy of the appellate order was served upon the dealer under the provisions of the Act? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The High Court, in our opinion, correctly answered the question referred to it in favour of the dealer-respondent and against the revenue. The position of law in a case where there was no allegation of the loss of any copy, a fortiori it would follow that where as in the present case the copy served upon a party is lost and there is no alternative for that party except to apply for a fresh copy in order to be in a position to file revision petition, the time spent in obtaining that copy would necessarily have to be excluded under section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. Issues:- Interpretation of section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 in computing the period of limitation for filing a revision petition under the U.P. Sales Tax Act.- Application of section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 when obtaining a copy of the order is necessary for filing a revision petition.- Exclusion of time spent in obtaining a copy of the order when filing a revision petition.Analysis:The judgment dealt with an appeal against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court regarding the exclusion of time taken to obtain a copy of an appellate order for filing a revision under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The issue revolved around the interpretation of section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, in computing the limitation period for filing a revision petition. The respondent had lost the copy of the appellate order served upon him, leading to the delay in filing the revision petition. The Judge (Revisions) accepted the respondent's contention that the time spent in obtaining another copy of the order should be excluded from the limitation period. The High Court also relied on section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows the exclusion of time required for obtaining a copy of the order complained of when filing a revision petition.The judgment discussed the applicability of section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, in cases governed by special or local laws such as the U.P. Sales Tax Act. It emphasized that the provisions of section 12(2) can be invoked for computing the limitation period for a revision petition under the U.P. Sales Tax Act if other conditions are fulfilled. The judgment rejected the argument that the time spent in obtaining a copy of the order should only be excluded if the copy is required to be filed along with the revision petition. It highlighted that section 12(2) mandates the exclusion of time required for obtaining a copy of the order sought to be revised, regardless of whether it needs to be filed with the revision petition.Moreover, the judgment cited precedents, including decisions by the Judicial Committee and various High Courts, to support the interpretation of section 12(2) of the Limitation Act. The court emphasized that the time spent in obtaining a copy of the order should be excluded from the limitation period even if the copy is not required to be filed along with the revision petition. It further clarified that the loss of the copy served upon a party necessitates the application for another copy, and the time spent in obtaining the new copy should be excluded under section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the exclusion of the time spent in obtaining a copy of the order was justified in computing the limitation period for filing a revision petition under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to the absence of representation by the respondent.