LexCOMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX, U.P. versus MANGAL SEN SHYAM LAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
58
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
COMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX, U.P.
v.
MANGAL SEN SHY AM LAL
April 2, 1975
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, R. S. SARKARIA AND A.C. GUPTA, JJ.]
U.P. Sales Tox Act, 1948-Sectlon 10(3) and 10(3-B) period of limitation
for filing revision by the Commissioner.
Interpretation of Statute-Whether scheme of the Act and rule can be taken
into consideration in interpreting the Act-Whether provision of an Act can
be construed on lhe analogy of another Act not pari materia.
The respondent, a dealer, was assessed in July, 1948. In January, 1960,
the SaJes Tax Officer wrote a letter to the Sales Tax Commissioner pointing
out a mistake which had crept in the order of assessment. In April 1960, the
Commissioner filed a Revision Application under s. 10 of the Acl Section
10(3) ands. 10(3-B) read as under:
"(3)(i) The Revising
Authority
(or an Additional Revising
Authority) may, for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality
or propriety of any order made by any appellate or assessing authority
under this Act, in its discretion, call for and examine, either on its
O\VD motion or on the application of the Commissioner of Sales Tax or
the persons aggrieved, the record of such order as it thinks fit :
Provided that no such application shall be entertained in any
case where an appeal lay against the order, but was not preferred.
(3-B) The Application under sub-section (3) shall b' .made within
one year from the date of service of the order complained of but the
Revising,Authority may on proof of sufficient cause entertain an appli-
cation within a further period of six months."
The assessee contended before th" Revisional Authority that the revi-
sion \\'BS time·barred inasmuch as it bad been filed much beyond the period
of Jimitation specified in s. 10(3-B). The Revenue contended that the start-
ing point for limitation was January, 1960 when the Commissioner received
the intimation of the assessment order and that since the revision had been
filed within one year from that intimation, it was within time.· The Revisional
Authority accepted the contention of the assessee and dismissed the application
as time barred. On a reference the High Court answered the questions against
the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
On appeal by Special Leave it was contended before this Court by the
Revenue:
(1) Sub-section (3-B) does not provide any starting point of .limi-
tation in the case of a revision filed by tQ.e Commissioner.
(2) In any case, the starting point of limitation is the date of
service of the order on the Commissioner or the dealer, as
the case may be.
Ori the oth~r hand, the assessee contended that the starting point of limita-
tion for a revision -application whether filed by the dealer or the Commissioner
is the date on which the order of assessment is served on the dealer.
' -
>
I
'
J
,.
c. s. T. v. MANGAL SEN (Sarkaria, !.)
5)
HELD : The contention of the Revenue that there is no limitation for a
A_
revision application filed by the Commisfiloner, is not correct. Sub-section
(3-B) prescribes a period of limitatign for every
revision-aj,plication, whe-
ther filed by the Commissioner or the dealer (all!eSSee), and the starting
point of limitation is the date of the service of the order on the revision-
applicant. [64El
(2) For the purpose of sub-section (3-B) service of the order complained
of means something subsequent to and distinct from the mere making of
B
the order. It implies fonnal communication of the order· after it has been
passed, on the revision application.
{64A]
(3) Sin~ the revision application in the instant case was filed: by the
Ccmmi.ssioner within one year of the communication of the assessment order,
it w .. within time. [66Bl
•,
(4) The difficulty in construing the unhappy language of the otatute was
C
felt in ·the year 1960 and even earlier, and has given rise to this protracted
litigation extending over fifteen years. It iB
desirable that the Legislature
should amend the statute and make its intent clear. In any event, it shouJd
make a statutory provision requiring the Sales Tax Officer to send forthwith
a copy of every assessment order made by him to the Commissioner for in~
formation. [66F-Gl
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Civil Appeal No. 1861 of 1971.. D
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment & Order .dated the
22nd January, 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in S.T .R. No. 361
of 1964.
S. C. ManchandExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.