TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter referred to as 'the Act'), was issued belatedly. 2. The petitioner filed a complaint alleging that the respondents had committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act. The intimation with regard to dishonour of the cheque, issued by the respondent, was received by the petitioner on 23.12.2006 and the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Act was issued on 22.01.2007. 3. The contention of the respondents was that the notice was required to be issued within a period of thirty days whereas the notice had been issued on the 31st day. 4. It was contended by the petitioner that the date on which intimation was received, being the date when the cause of action occurred, was to be excluded in terms of the Section 9 of the General Claus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act? & whether the day on which the information is received by the complainant from the bank that the cheque has been dishonoured is to be included or excluded while computing the 30-day period prescribed for issuing the statutory notice? 9. The petitioner received information of dishonour of the cheque on 23.12.2006. The notice was issued on 22.01.2007. If the said date (i.e. 23.12.2006) is to be included in the computation, then 22.01.2007 was the 31st day and notice would be beyond the prescribed period and if the said date is excluded then 22.01.2007 was the 30th day and notice would be within time. 10. The Supreme Court in Econ Antri Limited (supra), inter alia, held as under:- "18. Undoubtedly, the view taken in SIL Import USA run....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; ***** 34. As the Limitation Act is held to be not applicable to the NI Act, drawing parallel from Tarun Prasad Chatterjee where the Limitation Act was held not applicable, we are of the opinion that with the aid of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 it can be safely concluded in the present case that while calculating the period of one month which is prescribed under Section 142(b) of the NI Act, the period has to be reckoned by excluding the date on which the cause of action arose. It is not possible to agree with the counsel for the respondents that the use of the two different words "from" and "of" in Section 138 at different places indicates the intention of the legislature to convey different meanings by the said wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is answered accordingly." (underlining supplied) 11. The Supreme Court in Econ Antri Limited (supra) has held that the words "from" and "of" used in section 138 convey the same meaning i.e. "after" and accordingly the date on which the cause of action arises has to be excluded while calculating the period of limitation under Section 138 as well as 142 of the Act. 12. Seen from that perspective, the date on which the petitioner received the information of the dishonour of the cheque (i.e. 23.12.2006) is to be excluded for the purposes of computing the period of 30 days available under the Act for issuance of notice. On excluding the date 23.12.2006, from considering, it is seen that the notice issued on 22.01.2007 has been issued....