1970 (4) TMI 147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessee in the appeal on the 30th August, 1966. The memorandum of appeal despatched by the assessee by post was received in the judge (Revisions) office on 1st March, 1968. The revision was accompanied by an application for the condonation of delay. The judge (Revisions) dismissed the revision on the ground that it was barred by limitation. He held that service of the appellate order on the counsel was service on the assessee. The revision should have been filed within one year of 30th August, 1966. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed on the ground that it was not accompanied by an affidavit. The mere allegation that the assessee did not get the information about the dismissal of appeal from his lawyer was not suffi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o do all acts in connection with the case, including the filing of the revision. Thus, he was entitled to accept notices as well as copies of the orders. Consequently, the lawyer was the agent of the assessee within the meaning of rule 77. Service on him was due service on the assessee within the meaning of sub-section (3-B) of section 10. Thereunder the assessee was liable to file the revision within one year from the date of service of the order, that is 30th August, 1966. The revision was admittedly filed on 1st March, 1968, beyond the prescribed period of limitation. It was barred by time. Learned counsel, however, relied on rule 70 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules. That rule says: "70. Order in appeal or revision to be communicated to....