TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (8) TMI 495
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ales Tax Tribunal-1, Haryana at Chandigarh, respectively. 2.. Petitioner is a company, registered under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and is engaged in the business of manufacturing steel ingots and having its factory at Parwanoo in Himachal Pradesh. On April 19, 2000, petitioner had sent certain consignments from its factory at Parwanoo to M/s. Sandeep Steels, G.T. Road, Samalkha (Haryana) against different bills. Goods were sent through two vehicles. Petitioner also obtained forms ST-26A from multi purpose barrier existing on the outskirts of Parwanoo. Obtaining of such a form was mandatory under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In grounds of appeals, it was specifically alleged before the first appellate court as also before the Tribunal that certified copy of the orders was not supplied to the petitioner when order was passed or even subsequent thereto. Petitioner's applications annexures P2 and P3 for supply of certified copies were still pending when appeals were filed before the court below. Both the applications were moved on May 6, 2000, i.e., within the period of limitation. However, without noticing any of the contentions raised by the petitioner, Sales Tax Tribunal also, dismissed both the appeals vide order dated February 13, 2002 (annexure P9). Hence this writ petition. 5.. It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ery date and since the petitioner has failed to file appeals within the stipulated period, appeals were rightly dismissed by the appellate authority and the Tribunal. However, in reply to averments of the petitioner that it had moved two applications dated May 6, 2000 (annexures P2 and P3) for supply of certified copy of the order dated April 19, 2000, following plea was taken in para 6 of the written statement: "6. In reply to para 6 of the writ petition, it is submitted that respondent No. 3 supplied copy of order on April 19, 2002 to Sh. Suresh Kumar as stated above, hence no further action was required on the application annexures P2 and P3. Averments made in preceding para are reiterated." 7.. Counsel for the parties heard. 8.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... copy of the order should be excluded in computing the period of limitation of 60 days. 10.. In this case, admittedly, applications annexures P2 and P3 were moved by the petitioner on May 6, 2000, i.e., within the period of limitation of sixty days and those were still pending as no action was taken by the department. Under these circumstances, dismissal of appeals, being barred by limitation, was not justified. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Madan Lal Das & Sons, Bareilly [1976] 38 STC 543, to support his contentions as referred to above. In that judgment, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a similar situation under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the present case the copy served upon a party is lost and there is no alternative for that party except to apply for a fresh copy in order to be in a position to file revision petition, the time spent in obtaining that copy would necessarily have to be excluded under section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963." 12.. The case in hand is squarely covered by the ratio of judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Madan Lal's case [1976] 38 STC 543. As such, it can safely be concluded that both, Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) and Sales Tax Tribunal were not justified in dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioner vide orders annexures P6 and P9 respectively. In this case, limitation could have been condoned on the basis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. 12.. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result in foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words '....