Limitation bars reference application where the revising authority never faced a competent request to state a case.

An application under section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was not maintainable where the underlying request to the revising authority had been filed beyond the 60-day statutory period. A rejection as time-barred was treated as rejection of an incompetent application, not as a refusal to state a case under section 11(2) on a competent request. Because there was no valid refusal under section 11(2), the statutory precondition for invoking section 11(3) was absent, and the application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 was maintainable when the underlying request to the revising authority was made beyond the statutory period and the revising authority had rejected it as time-barred.

Analysis: The right to move the High Court under section 11(3) arose only where the revising authority had refused to state a case under section 11(2). The application before the revising authority was itself not made within 60 days and was therefore incompetent. A rejection on the ground of limitation was a rejection of an incompetent application and not a refusal of a competent prayer capable of acceptance or rejection on merits. Since there was no valid refusal to state a case under section 11(2), the statutory condition for invoking section 11(3) was absent.

Conclusion: The application under section 11(3) was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---