1970 (1) TMI 63

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Financial Commissioner was justified in dismissing the revision petition in limine on the ground of delay, especially when there is no limitation prescribed? On a reference to the record we find that the statement of the case in the reference made by the Financial Commissioner is not in accordance with the provisions of section 22(3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). We were first inclined to remand the case for the requisite reference to be drawn up but in view of the issues raised and the scanty reference to facts which is necessary, we are not adopting the said course. Messrs Bahadur Chand Chaman Lal, petitioners, are a partnership concern duly registered under the Act and are engaged in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tends that no period of limitation has expressly been provided by the statute and in fact, the Legislature has by design given the widest amplitude of powers to the Financial Commissioner to interfere in his revisional jurisdiction at any time. Particular emphasis has been placed on the use of the words "at any time" in the abovesaid provision. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has sought to place reliance on National Rayon Corporation Limited v. The Additional Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab[1964] 15 S.T.C. 746., and The State of Kerala v. K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Company(2). At the very outset we wish to observe that the two authorities relied upon by the learned counsel have no direct bearing on the que....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e. He had observed as follows: "On examining the record of this case, I find that this revision petition is time-barred as the calculations given below will show......... Allowing the normal 90 days for filing such revisions, this petition is thus time-barred by 112-90=22 days." The learned Financial Commissioner proceeded to reject the revision petition in limine on this ground. On perusing the contents of the abovesaid order it is obvious that the approach of the learned Financial Commissioner was one of absolute rigidity rather than that of flexibility. The dismissal of the petition proceeded on the ground that it could not be entertained after the normal period of 90 days for filing such petitions according to the settled practice of....