Limitation and review powers: certified-copy time cannot be excluded for a reference application, and recall needs an apparent error.

Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 permits exclusion of time spent obtaining a certified copy only for appeals, applications for leave to appeal, revision, or review; it does not extend to an application for reference under section 33(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Tribunal's long-standing practice could not expand that statutory scope, so exclusion of copy-obtaining time was unavailable. The Tribunal also had no jurisdiction to review and recall its earlier order condoning delay and directing a reference, because no error apparent on the face of the record was shown. A mistaken view of law or fact was insufficient to justify recall.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the time taken in obtaining a certified copy could be excluded while computing limitation for an application for reference under section 33(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959; (ii) whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review and recall its earlier order condoning delay and directing a reference.

Issue (i): Whether the time taken in obtaining a certified copy could be excluded while computing limitation for an application for reference under section 33(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 permits exclusion of time requisite for obtaining a copy only in computing limitation for an appeal, an application for leave to appeal, revision, or review. An application seeking a reference to the High Court under section 33(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 is not covered by that provision. The long-standing practice of the Tribunal could not enlarge the scope of the Limitation Act.

Conclusion: The exclusion of time for obtaining a certified copy was not available, and the challenge on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review and recall its earlier order condoning delay and directing a reference.

Analysis: The order of 10 December 1971 was passed after hearing both sides and reflected a concluded view that the reference application was within time or that the delay stood condoned. A subsequent review could be sustained only if there was an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous view of law or fact does not amount to such an error. Since no apparent error was shown, the Tribunal could not recall its earlier order.

Conclusion: The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review and recall the earlier order, and the impugned recall order was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The writ applications succeeded because the Tribunal's later order of review and recall was without jurisdiction, and the reference applications were required to be decided on their merits.

Ratio Decidendi: The benefit of section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is confined to the proceedings expressly mentioned in that provision, and a judicial order cannot be reviewed or recalled in the absence of an error apparent on the face of the record.

---