TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1975 (5) TMI 77
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment dated the 7th June, 1966. An appeal having been preferred by the dealer before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the same was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order dated 6th April, 1968. On 3rd June, 1968, the dealer sent by registered post an application for the grant of certified copy of the order dated 6th April, 1968. This application for certified copy was received by the authority on 6th June, 1968, and the copy was ready and delivered to the assessee on 8th July, 1968. The dealer thereafter filed an application in revision on 12th July, 1968, before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bhagalpur. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petition of revision summarily on the ground that it was barred by limitation even after taking into account the time taken in obtaining the certified copy from 6th June, 1968, to 8th July, 1968. Against that revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner, the dealer preferred a further revision before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by a majority of two members to one held against the dealer negativing the contention put forward on behalf of the dealer that the period eligible for deduction for obtaining the certifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty. What is more relevant to notice is that rules have been framed in consonance with which an appeal or a revision can be filed. Rule 21 of the Rules provides the procedure for filing a memorandum of appeal under section 30 of the Act. Similarly, rule 22 of the Rules prescribes the formalities which must be completed for filing an application for revision under section 31 of the Act. Rule 22(1)(c) lays down that an application for revision under section 31 filed by a dealer or a person upon whom notice under section 21 has been served shall be presented to the revisional authority by the applicant or by his agent or legal practitioner or be sent by registered post to the said authority. Clause (e) of rule 22(1) requires that the petition of revision must be accompanied by a certified copy of the order which is sought to be revised and true typed copies of the final orders at the original stage, the appellate stage and the preceding revisional stage or stages, if any. It is clear, therefore, that an application for revision must be accompanied by a certified copy of the order impugned. Although the law requires a certified copy of the order under revision to accompany the applicati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concerned. The remaining portion of sub-rule (1) deals with the value of court-fee stamp, searching fee, etc. So also sub-rules (2) and (3) lay down the requisite court-fee stamps to be filed by the applicant in applications for supply of the copy in various modes. Thereafter subrule (4) of rule 35 reads thus: "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1), (2) and (3), an application for copy may also be made by registered post, in which case the applicant shall pay a consolidated fee of rupees five. In such case, the application shall be accompanied by a challan in form XIX showing payment of the amount into the Government treasury." From the aforesaid provisions of sub-rule (4) of rule 35, it is obvious that one of the modes available to the dealer for making an application for certified copy of any document including the order against which an application in revision is to be filed is making an application by registered post. It is not in dispute in the present case that the dealer had made an application within the period of limitation by registered post on 3rd June, 1968. It is also not in dispute that the required consolidated fee of Rs. 5 and the challan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., then the period from 3rd June to 6th June, 1968, would be entitled to be deducted in computing the period of limitation. As I have already pointed out above, the law confers a right on the dealer to make an application for copy by registered post. If in pursuance of such a legal sanction the dealer did make an application through registered post before the expiry of the period of limitation, then can it be said that the time taken by the postal department to reach the application to the authority concerned was not beyond the control of the dealer? The answer in my view should clearly be in the negative. The postal department in view of the provisions of rule 35(4) will be deemed to have received the application on behalf of the authority concerned. For the purpose of computation of the period of limitation or the deduction of any period under the provisions analogous to those of section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, there seems no justification in law to make any distinction between the provisions of sub-rule (1) of rule 35 on the one hand and sub-rule (4) of that rule on the other. Under sub-rule (1), if the dealer had made an application to the authority concerned in person or t....