Statutory limitation and condonation of delay require proper record material; an oral request alone is insufficient.

Limitation for an appeal under the U.P. Sales Tax Act runs from service of the assessment order, and an incorrect figure in the assessment order or demand notice does not extend that period; the error may be a ground of appeal, but not a basis to alter limitation. Notes of arguments recorded by the appellate authority may be part of the revisional record, but a bare oral request for condonation is not an application under the Limitation Act unless material showing sufficient cause is before the forum. On the record considered, the revisional authority was justified in refusing to condone delay for the first time in revision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether incorrect mention of tax already deposited in the assessment order and demand notice affected the period of limitation for filing the appeal. (ii) Whether the revisional record could include the notes of arguments recorded by the appellate authority and whether an oral request for condonation of delay could be treated as an application under the Limitation Act. (iii) Whether the finding that no application for condonation of delay was made before the appellate authority was correct. (iv) Whether the revisional authority had power to condone delay in filing the appeal dismissed as time-barred.

Issue (i): Whether incorrect mention of tax already deposited in the assessment order and demand notice affected the period of limitation for filing the appeal.

Analysis: The period of limitation for an appeal under section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act runs from service of the assessment order. The proviso requires the memorandum of appeal to be accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of the tax admitted to be due. The correctness of the figure mentioned in the assessment order or demand notice is not the statutory basis for computing limitation. An error in those documents may give rise to a ground of appeal, but it does not alter the time within which the appeal must be filed.

Conclusion: The incorrect mention did not affect limitation, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional record could include the notes of arguments recorded by the appellate authority and whether an oral request for condonation of delay could be treated as an application under the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The record maintained by the appellate authority, including notes of arguments, could form part of the judicial record and be looked into in revision. However, a mere oral request for condonation of delay, without placing the necessary material on record, is not enough to invoke section 5 of the Limitation Act. Relief under that provision requires material before the tribunal on the basis of which sufficient cause can be examined.

Conclusion: The revisional record could be considered, but an oral request alone could not be treated as an application under the Limitation Act; the issue was partly in favour of the assessee and partly against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the finding that no application for condonation of delay was made before the appellate authority was correct.

Analysis: The revisional order did not record any clear finding that no oral prayer was made before the appellate authority. At most, there was an observation that the note in the register was doubtful. That was insufficient to support a definite finding that no oral request had been made.

Conclusion: The finding was not in the sense contended, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the revisional authority had power to condone delay in filing the appeal dismissed as time-barred.

Analysis: Since no written application had been made before the appellate authority and no material showing sufficient cause for delay was on record at that stage, the revisional authority was justified in holding that it could not condone the delay for the first time in revision on the basis of an oral request or later material.

Conclusion: The revisional authority had no power to condone the delay on the material before it, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that limitation was unaffected by the alleged error in the demand notice, an oral request alone was insufficient for condonation of delay, and the revisional authority was justified in refusing to condone delay on the existing record.

Ratio Decidendi: For an appeal governed by a statutory limitation period, only the statute-prescribed requirements can affect limitation, and condonation of delay under the Limitation Act requires material on record sufficient to show cause; a bare oral request without supporting material is insufficient.

---