Limitation Act applies to revision proceedings; time to obtain a certified copy may be excluded for limitation purposes.

The Punjab HC held that section 29 of the Limitation Act applies to revision applications under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to Delhi. It further construed section 12(2), read with section 29, broadly so that the revisional proceeding was treated as an appeal for limitation purposes, allowing exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order. However, the mere requirement in rule 62, as applied through rule 66, that a revision be accompanied by a copy did not by itself authorise exclusion of that time. The reference was answered accordingly, with exclusion allowed under section 12(2) but not from the rules alone.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 29 of the Limitation Act applies to revision applications under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to Delhi; (ii) whether section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, read with section 29, permits exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy of the order in a revision application; (iii) whether the requirement in rule 62, as applied to revision by rule 66, by itself authorises exclusion of the time taken to obtain the copy.

Issue (i): Whether section 29 of the Limitation Act applies to revision applications under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to Delhi.

Analysis: The reference proceeded on the basis that proceedings under the sales tax law are governed by the Limitation Act through section 29. The Court accepted that the revisional remedy under the Act is a proceeding to which section 29 applies.

Conclusion: Section 29 of the Limitation Act applies to revision applications under the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, read with section 29, permits exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy of the order in a revision application.

Analysis: The Court held that the word "appeal" in section 12(2) is to be understood broadly and can include a revision provided by the special statute where the revisional authority is asked to re-examine the order of the inferior authority. On that construction, the time needed to obtain the certified copy is excluded in computing limitation.

Conclusion: The petitioner is entitled to exclude the time spent in obtaining the certified copy under section 12(2) of the Limitation Act.

Issue (iii): Whether the requirement in rule 62, as applied to revision by rule 66, by itself authorises exclusion of the time taken to obtain the copy.

Analysis: The mere procedural requirement that a revision petition be accompanied by a certified copy does not, by itself, create a rule for excluding the time taken to obtain that copy in computing limitation.

Conclusion: The question is answered in the negative.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that limitation could be computed by excluding the time required to obtain the certified copy for the revision, while the standalone copy-requirement in the rules did not itself furnish such exclusion.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute's revisional remedy is, in substance, an appeal for the purpose of limitation, section 12(2) permits exclusion of the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy of the challenged order.

---