1969 (11) TMI 63 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Delay in Tax Appeal Filing Condoned under Limitation Act: High Court Decision

The High Court of Allahabad ruled that the delay in filing appeals against tax assessment orders under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the years 1958-59 and ... - Issues:Assessment of tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60, delay in filing appeals against assessment orders, applicability of section 12 of the Limitation Act, entitlement to condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.Analysis:The judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad pertains to the assessment of tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The assessee received copies of the assessment orders along with notices of demand on 23rd September 1961, and subsequently applied for certified copies on 30th September 1961. The certified copies were received on 22nd October 1961, following which the assessee filed appeals against the assessment orders on 1st November 1961. However, the appellate authority dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation on 30th May 1963, leading the assessee to apply for revision, which was rejected. The main issue raised was whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act.The second question addressed by the court was regarding the applicability of section 12 of the Limitation Act in relation to the certified copies filed by the assessee along with the appeals. Referring to a Full Bench decision, the court established that section 12(2) of the Limitation Act applies to proceedings under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The court cited a Supreme Court ruling which emphasized that the benefit of section 12(2) should be considered concerning the certified copy of the judgment under appeal, regardless of whether the appellant had obtained other certified copies separately. The court concluded that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of section 12(2) for the certified copies filed with the appeals, irrespective of having received copies directly from the Sales Tax Officer earlier. Thus, the second question was answered affirmatively.Given the resolution of the second question, the court did not address the first and third questions raised in the case. Consequently, no answers were provided for those questions. The court awarded costs to the assessee, assessing them at Rs. 100 as one set of costs for both cases, including counsel's fee. The reference was answered accordingly, bringing the judgment to a close.