Service-based limitation for furnishing security under a stay order runs from communication, not the date of the order.

Under Section 9(3-A)(iii) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the 30-day period for furnishing security to keep a stay order operative runs from service of the order on the assessee, not from the date the order is passed, unless the statute clearly says otherwise. The provision is to be applied in a practical manner so that delayed communication does not defeat the remedy. Security furnished within 30 days of service satisfies the statutory requirement and preserves the stay order in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the period of 30 days for furnishing security under Section 9(3-A)(iii) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act runs from the date of the stay order or from the date of its service on the assessee.

Analysis: The provision required the appellant to furnish security before the expiry of 30 days so that the stay order would continue in force. The Court held that where the stay order is not communicated immediately, counting the period from the date of the order itself would be unreasonable and would defeat the practical operation of the remedy. On the facts, the security had been furnished within 30 days of service of the order, and that compliance satisfied the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: The period of 30 days was held to commence from the date of of the order on the assessee, not from the date of passing of the order, and the security was treated as timely furnished in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory time-limit for compliance with a stay order depends on the order being acted upon by the assessee, the period runs from service of the order unless the statute clearly provides otherwise.

---