Limitation for tax reference applications permits exclusion of certified copy time when procedural rules do not exclude the Limitation Act.

In computing limitation for a reference application under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the time reasonably taken to obtain a certified copy of the revisional order is excludable where the procedural rules, read mutatis mutandis, contemplate annexing necessary documents and there is no express exclusion of the Limitation Act, 1963. The statutory form and rules were broad enough to include the impugned order copy as part of the case papers. On that basis, the application should not be treated as time-barred merely because of the copy-obtaining period, and any request for condonation of delay had to be reconsidered in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in computing limitation for a reference application under section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the revisional order could be excluded, and whether the Tribunal could entertain the application after condoning delay.

Analysis: The reference procedure under the Act, as supplemented by the Tribunal Regulations and rule 83A(iii) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, required the application to be accompanied by the documents which the dealer considered necessary to form part of the case. The expression used in the statutory form and the rules was broad enough to include a certified copy of the order sought to be challenged. Regulation 16(ii) made the rules governing revision applicable mutatis mutandis to reference proceedings, and the rule of adaptation permitted the necessary changes to be made in applying the procedural framework. In the absence of any express exclusion of the Limitation Act, 1963, and having regard to the statutory scheme now in force, the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy had to be excluded while computing limitation. The assessee was therefore entitled to seek credit for the period spent in obtaining the copy, and the Tribunal ought to have considered the application for condonation of delay on that basis.

Conclusion: The exclusion of the time taken to obtain the certified copy was permissible, and the reference application could not be treated as time-barred on that ground. The delay question was required to be reconsidered in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing procedural rules for a tax reference, read mutatis mutandis, contemplate annexure of necessary documents and do not exclude the Limitation Act, the time reasonably required to obtain a certified copy of the impugned order is excludable in computing limitation for the reference application.

---