TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (7) TMI 397
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tatute itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which case the language may be varied or modified, so as to avoid such inconvenience, but no further." It is the application of the above principle that is called for in this revision which is directed at the instance of the assessee-dealer against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated August 17, 1987, made in Tribunal Appeal No. 16 of 1983. The question raised in this revision relates to interpretation of sub-section (6) of section 20 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short "the Act"). The facts are a few and simple. The petitioner-assessee is a dealer in cement, registered under the Act. For the assessment year 1971-72 the Commercial Tax Of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion the revision proceedings were deferred and held that the exercise of revisional power was not beyond the period of limitation. Sri S.R. Ashok, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that subsection (6) of section 20 cannot be so interpreted as to take the benefit of a longer period than the one during which the revision proceedings were deferred as it would not only be contrary to the intention of the Legislature but would also lead to an anomalous situation. The learned Government Pleader, however, submits that the principle of liberal interpretation should be applied to the facts of this case and in so doing if the period of limitation gets extended, the benefit cannot be denied to the Revenue and that is what the Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvolving a question of law having a direct bearing on the order or proceeding in question, the period during which the stay order was in force or such appeal or proceeding was pending shall be excluded in computing the period of four years specified in this section for the purposes of exercising the power under this section." The fundamental principle of interpretation of a statute is to discover the intention of the Legislature and to give effect to it. The scheme of section 20, extracted above, inter alia, suggests that in case the revisional authority proposes to exercise jurisdiction under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 20, it should do so within such period not exceeding four years from the date on which the order was served on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime when the order of deferment was passed the revisional authority has about 5 months 5 days to pass the final order of revision to save the order from the mischief of sub-section (3) of section 20 but the order of revision was passed on June 19, 1982, that is after about 3 years and 10 months. The writ petition came to be filed after about 4 years of the passing of the order of assessment and after three years of the order of deferment. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, the order should have been passed within 5 months and 5 days of the dismissal of the writ petition on December 9, 1981, that is, on or before January 13, 1982 but, in fact, it was passed on June 19, 1982, therefore, the revision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity, the Legislature thought it fit to empower the revising authority to defer the proceeding and await the orders of the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be. For this purpose it enables the authority to defer the revisional proceedings. It applied the same principle as in the case of grant of stay order, to this situation and provided that the period taken in the said appeal or stay proceeding shall be excluded. In our view, the Legislature only wanted to extend the period of limitation by the period during which the authority was disabled from proceeding with the revision. It did not, in our view, intend to extend the period of limitation by making sub-section (3) of section 20 nugatory. If that is the intention and we thi....