TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (10) TMI 214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch 1980 dismissing LA. No. 222 of 1979 filed by the Applicants to condone the delay in filing the application under Section 8 of the Act. The application was held to be barred by limitation under the amended Rule 3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Tribunal) Rules, 1972 which requires an application under Section 8 to be filed within 60 days from the date on which the Act which gives rise to the dispute was done. The Petitioners challenge the vires of his Rule in so far as it prescribes a period of limitation for an application under Section 8 of the Act. 2. The relevant provisions of the Act are the following: Section 7 Constitution of Tribunals.--(1) The Government may, by notification in the Gazette constitute one, or more than one Tribunal for the purposes of this Act. (2) The Tribunal shall consist of a single person who is, or has been or is qualified to be appointed as, a District Judge. (3) Where more than one Tribunal is constituted under Sub-section (1), the Government shall also define the areas within which each Tribunal shall exercise jurisdiction. (4) The Tribunal shall decide all matters within its competence and may review any of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wing, the Legislative Assembly makes any modification in the rule or decides that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect as the case may be; so however that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule. Rule 3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Tribunal) Rules, 1972 as it originally stood is as follows: 3. Application to the Tribunal.--An application under Section 8 shall be in Form 'A' and shall be presented to the Tribunal within sixty days from the date on which the Act which gives rise to the dispute was done: Provided that the Tribunal may entertain an application presented beyond the expiry of the said period of sixty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the application within that period. The above rule was amended by notification, dated 11th January 1977 and published in Kerala Gazette, dated 25th January 1977 as per which the proviso was substituted by an explanation as follows: Explanation.--For the purpose of this rule, the date on which the Act whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Forest Tribunal Dismissal of the main application is for the reason that the petition to condone delay had been earlier dismissed. 4. The principal question for our consideration is as to whether Rule 3 of the Kerala Private Forests (Tribunal) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal Rules) fixing a time-limit for an application under Section 8 is within the jurisdiction of the Government to issue or whether as contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, the said Rule is ultra vires and void. Section 7 Clause (5) of the Act provides that the Tribunal shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed. The rule-making power is found in Section 17 which is extracted above. There is no specific provision either in Section 7 or in Section 17 empowering the Government to fix a time-limit for the presentation of an application under Section 8 of the Act. But the contention on behalf of the Respondents is that the fixation of a period of limitation is only a matter of procedure within the meaning of Section 7 Clause (5) and such Rules as to procedure can be issued by the Government by virtue of the powers delegated to it under Section 17 of the Act. We find it dif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he matter. The present tendency is that where a question of limitation arises, the distinction between so called substantive and procedural statutes of limitation may not prove to be a determining factor but what his to be considered is whether the statutes extinguishes merely the remedy or extinguishes the substantive right as well as the remedy. Instead of generalising on a principle the safest course would be to examine each case on its own facts and circumstances and determine for instance whether it affects substantive right and extinguishes them or whether it merely concerns a procedural rule only dealing with remedies, or whether the intendment to prescribe limitation is discernible from the scheme of the Act or is inconsistent with the rule making power etc. (P.9) Again at paragraph 10 of the Supreme Court stated as follows: 10. Apart from the implications inherent in the term procedure appearing in Section 96(1)(b) the power to prescribe by Rules any matter falling within the ambit of the term must be the 'procedure to be followed in proceedings before such Court'. The word 'in' emphasised by us furnishes a clue to the controversy that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith the Corporation. This was probably an appropriate provision in which the legislature if it had intended to prescribe a time for such applications could have provided. Be that as it may, in our view the omission to provide a period of limitation in any of these provisions while providing for limitation of a claim by an employee for the payment of any benefit under the regulations shows clearly that the legislature did not intend to fetter the claim under Section 75(2)(i). It appears to us that where the legislature clearly intends to provide specifically the period of limitation in respect of claims arising thereunder, it cannot be considered to have left such matters in respect of claims under some similar provisions to be provided for by the rules to be made by the Government under its delegated powers to prescribe the procedure to be followed in proceedings before such Court That is sought to be conferred is the power to make rules for regulating the procedure before the Insurance Court after an application has been filed and when it is seized of the matter. That apart the nature of the rule bars the claim itself and extinguishes the right which is not within the pale of proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1) shall not apply to any sale in the course of interstate trade or commerce unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duly filled and signed by the registered dealer to whom the goods are sold containing the prescribed particulars in a prescribed form obtained from the prescribed authority or if the goods are sold to the Government, not being a registered dealer, a certificate in the prescribed form duly filled and signed by a duly authorised officer of the Government. Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules made by the Central Government to carry out the purpose of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 13 enumerates matters in particular and without prejudice to the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) in respect of which the State Government may make rules. Rule 6(1) of the Central Sales Tax (Kerala) Rules, 1957 requires a dealer to submit a return together with the requisite declarations, etc., so as to reach the Assessing Authority on or before the 20th of each month and as per the first proviso to the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax Act was entitled to the exemption under Section 11 of the Act as it then stood. Section 11(2) allowed the income referred to in Clauses (a) or (b) of Section 11(1) not to be included in the total income of the previous year subject to certain conditions being satisfied. One of the conditions is that the Assessee specifies by notice in writing to the Income Tax Officer "in the prescribed manner" the purpose for which the income is being accumulated and the period for which the income is to be accumulated. Rule 17 framed under the Act provides for the notice to be given to the Income Tax Officer under Sub-section (2) of Section 11 in Form 10 and Form 10 in paragraph 2 requires the income to be exempted as per Section 11 Clause (2) to be deposited within six months commencing from the end of each previous year in the manner provided in Section 11(2). It was this provision that came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench at page 596 held as follows: It will be noted that Rule 17 as such, does not provide for any period of time within which the amounts set apart for charitable purpose is to be invested in any Government Security or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest or portion thereof has vested in the Government or not. The question for decision therefore under Section 8 of the Act relates, to the Applicants' title to immovable property, and his right to adjudication of such title when threatened cannot be taken away by a rule framed by the Government prescribing a period of limitation which is not authorised by the Act itself. Under the ordinary law of limitation title to immovable property will be lost under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by adverse possession for a period of 12 years. By the amended Rule 3 of the Tribunal Rules issued by the Government, the title to immovable property is lost if the person claiming title is precluded from presenting an application under Section 8 of the Act within 60 days from the date on which the act which gives rise to the dispute was done and such act according to Rule 2A of the Vesting and Assignment Rules, 1974 is only a notification specifying the details of the private forests the boundaries demarcated, etc., by the Forest Authorities. By precluding an Applicant to agitate his claim to a title under Section 8 of the Act, Rule 3 of the Tribunal Rules takes away the right of the owne....