TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an application for a statement of case under section 21 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, could be entertained on the Original Side of the High Court as an exercise of special jurisdiction; (ii) whether, in computing limitation for such an application, the time required to obtain a copy of the order of the Board of Revenue was to be excluded.
Issue (i): Whether an application for a statement of case under section 21 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, could be entertained on the Original Side of the High Court as an exercise of special jurisdiction.
Analysis: The jurisdiction created by section 21 of the Sales Tax Act was treated as a special statutory jurisdiction and not as part of the Court's ordinary original or appellate jurisdiction. The form of the petition did not control the existence of jurisdiction. The Judge on the Original Side, when assigned the matter by the Chief Justice, was competent to hear the application and direct the Board to state the case under section 21(3).
Conclusion: The application was maintainable on the Original Side, and the Court had jurisdiction to direct the statement of the case.
Issue (ii): Whether, in computing limitation for such an application, the time required to obtain a copy of the order of the Board of Revenue was to be excluded.
Analysis: The Court applied the principle that the period necessary for obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order is to be excluded in computing limitation. Section 29 of the Indian Limitation Act was treated as governing the computation, and support was drawn from the analogous treatment of limitation under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Conclusion: The time spent in obtaining the copy had to be excluded for limitation purposes.
Final Conclusion: The statutory reference application succeeded, and the requested case was directed to be stated and referred to the High Court, with each party bearing its own costs.
Ratio Decidendi: A jurisdiction conferred by a special taxing statute to require a case to be stated is an independent statutory jurisdiction, and limitation for invoking it is computed by excluding the time reasonably required to obtain the relevant order copy.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
