TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1976 (9) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g question referred to it under section 11(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in favour of the dealer-respondent and against the revenue: "Whether the time taken by the dealer in obtaining another copy of the impugned appellate order could be excluded for the purpose of limitation for filing revision under section 10(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act when one copy of the appellate order was served upon the dealer under the provisions of the Act." The matter relates to the assessment year 1960-61. An appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the Sales Tax Officer was disposed of by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Bareilly. The copy of the appellate order was served on the dealer-respond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its of the case and partly allowed the revision petition. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the question reproduced above was referred to the High Court. The High Court, as stated above, answered the question in favour of the respondent and, in doing so, placed reliance upon the provisions of section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Act 36 of 1963), which reads as under: "(2) In computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded." It may be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prescribes the period of limitation for filing of revision petition, the High Court was in error in relying upon the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This contention, in our opinion, in wholly bereft of force. Sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963, reads as under: "(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to justify the inference that the time spent for obtaining copy of the order sought to be revised can be excluded only if such a copy is required to be filed along with the revision application. All that section 12(2) states in this connection is that in computing the period of limitation for a revision, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order sought to be revised shall be excluded. It would be impermissible to read in section 12(2) a proviso that the time requisite for obtaining copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded only if such copy has to be filed along with the memorandum of appeal or application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of judgmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pen to draw it up in two different ways, and the practitioner may well want to see its form before attacking it by his memorandum of appeal. As to the judgment, no doubt when the case does not come from up-country, the practitioner will have heard it delivered, but he may not carry all the points of a long judgment in his memory, and as Sir John Edge says, the legislature may not wish him to hurry to make a decision till he has well considered it." Following the above decision, it was held by a Full Bench consisting of five Judges of the Lahore High Court in the case of Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lahore v. Official Liquidators, Punjab Cotton Press Co. Ltd.[1941] I.L.R. 22 Lah. 191 (F.B.). that even though under the rules and orders of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Lastly, it has been argued that the copy of the order of the Assistant Commissioner was served upon the respondent and, as such, it was not necessary for the respondent to apply for copy of the said order. In this respect we find that the copy which was served upon the respondent was lost by him. The loss of that copy necessitated the filing of an application for obtaining another copy of the order of the Assistant Commissioner. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Maharaj Narain [1968] 2 S.C.R. 842., the appellant obtained three copies of the order appealed against by applying on three different dates for the copy. The appellant filed along with the memorandum of appeal that copy which had taken the maximum time for its preparation a....