Limitation for tax appeals runs from the original assessment order; rectification does not restart time to appeal.

Limitation for challenging an assessment order under the U.P. Sales Tax Act runs from service of the original assessment order, and a later rectification under section 22 does not restart that period for an appeal against the original order. The commentary also notes that the right of appeal is substantive and must be exercised within the statutory thirty-day period. In relation to delay, condonation under the Indian Limitation Act is discretionary and must be exercised judicially; where the tribunal found intentional delay, refusal to extend time was not treated as arbitrary or unlawful. The discussion therefore treats the appeal as time-barred and the refusal to condone delay as sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether limitation for filing an appeal against the assessment order commenced from the original assessment order or from the order of rectification passed under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. (ii) Whether refusal to condone the delay in filing the appeal was illegal.

Issue (i): Whether limitation for filing an appeal against the assessment order commenced from the original assessment order or from the order of rectification passed under section 22 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The right of appeal under section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is a substantive right and must be exercised within thirty days from service of the assessment order. The assessee did not appeal within that period and instead sought rectification under section 22. The rectification was allowed in the assessee's favour, but that did not extinguish the effect of the original assessment order for limitation purposes. The rectified order could be challenged if aggrieved, but the assessee could not treat the rectification as restarting limitation for an appeal against the original assessment order. The authority relied upon by the assessee was held distinguishable.

Conclusion: Limitation ran from service of the original assessment order, and the appeal was barred by time.

Issue (ii): Whether refusal to condone the delay in filing the appeal was illegal.

Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded a finding that the assessee had intentionally delayed filing the appeal. Relief under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act is discretionary and must be exercised judicially. On the facts found, the refusal to extend the benefit of condonation was not shown to be arbitrary or unlawful.

Conclusion: The refusal to condone the delay was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision was dismissed because the appeal was time-barred and no legal error was found in the rejection of condonation of delay.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal must be filed within the statutory period computed from service of the original assessment order, and a rectification proceeding does not, by itself, restart limitation for challenging that original order.

---