TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Clarification on Timeliness of Filing Application under Sales Tax Act</h1> <h3>Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Co., Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP., Lucknow</h3> Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Co., Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP., Lucknow - [1953] 4 STC 289 (All) Issues:- Interpretation of Section 11(2)(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act regarding the timeline for making an application to the High Court against the refusal of the Revising Authority to refer a case.- Whether the time taken in filing requisite copies should be excluded in the computation of the period for making the application.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an application under Section 11(2)(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, where the applicant sought a reference to the High Court after the Revising Authority's refusal. The key issue was the interpretation of the timeline for filing such an application. The applicant argued that the application was not time-barred, but to ensure compliance, also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court clarified that the application must be made within thirty days of the Revising Authority's refusal to refer the case, not from the date of service of the notice of such refusal. This interpretation was based on the clear language of Section 11(2)(b) and analogized with the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, emphasizing the date of refusal as the starting point for the timeline.Regarding the exclusion of time taken in filing requisite copies, the court referred to a Division Bench ruling in Amritsar Sugar Mill Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow, which held that if the time for filing copies is excluded in the computation of the period, the application would be within time. The court upheld this ruling, stating that they were bound by it, and concluded that the application in question was within the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the court directed the issuance of notice of the application to the opposing party, ordering accordingly based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions and precedents cited.
TaxTMI 