COMMISSLONER OF SALES TAX, U.P. versus MADANLAL DAN & SONS, BAREILLY

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 683 · Decided: 22-09-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
COMMISSlONER OF SALES TAX, U.P. 
v. 
MADAN LAL DAN & SONS, BAREILL Y 
September 22, 1976 
883 
\H. R. KHANNA, N. L. UNTWALIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 1963, S. 12(2), whether applicable to revision petitio11s 
filed under-stction 10, U.P. Sales Tax Act-Time spent in 
obtaining 
second 
copy of impugned order, whether to be excluded in computing limitation period 
for filing revision petitions. 
The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax, Bareilly, dispcn;cd of the 
respondents' appeal made against an order of the Sales Tax Officer. 
A copy 
A 
B 
of the order was served on the respondent, but he lost. it. Later, he obtained 
another copy and filed a revision petition under-section 10 of the U.P. Sales 
C 
Tax Act. 
The same was opposed as being time-barred, but· the Judge (Revi-
sion) accepted the respondent's contention that under-section 
12(2) 
of the 
Limitation Act, he was entitled to exclude the time spent in 
obtaining the 
second copy of the order, while computing the limitation period. The question 
whether such exclusion was permissible, was referred to the High Court which 
answered in the affirmative. 
The appellant contended that the U.P. Sales Tax Act itself provided for a 
•pecific period of limitation, and therefore the Limitation Act was not applic-
D 
able, and also that, a copy of the order was not required to be filed with the 
revision petition, arid so the time spent in obtaining a second copy could not 
be excluded in computation of limitation. 
Dismissing the appeal the Court, 
HELD : ( 1) Where the copy served upon a party i• Jost and 
there i• nd 
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 
E 
necessarily have to be excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 
1963. 
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Maharaj Narain & Ors. [1968] 2 
SCR 
842 
followed. [688 B-C] 
(2) The provisions of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act would apply 
even though the copy mentioned in that Sub..section is not required to be filed 
alongwith the Memorandum of appeal. 
The same position should hold good 
in case of revision petitions ever since Limitation Act of 1963 came into force. 
1686 B, D-687 Fl 
F 
J. N. Surly v. T. S. Chettyar (55 IA 161), The Punjab Co_operative Bank 
Ltd., Lahore v. The Official Liquidators, the Punjab Collon Press Co. Ltd. (1941) 
ILR 22 Lahore Series 191, MT. Lalitkuari v. Mahaprasad N. Singh (1947) !LR 
26 Panta Series 157, Additional Collector of Customs, CaJcutta & Anr. 
v. 
M /s. Best & Co. (AIR 1966 SC 1713) S. A. Gaf!oor v. Ayesha Beg/mm & Ors. 
(C.A 2406 /1969 decided on 18-8-1970 Unreported Judgment of Supreme 
Court, 1970 Vol. 2, page 784) followed. 
(3) For the purpose of determining ;my. period of limitation prescribed for 
any application by any special or local Jaw, the provisions contained in Section 
12(2), inter alia, shall apply in so far a•, and to the extent to which they are 
not expressly excluded by such special or local Jaw, and there is nothing in the 
U.P. Sales Tax Act expressly excluding the application of Section 12(2) of the 
Limitation Act. [685 H, 686 A] 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1726 of 1971. 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
20-4-1971 of the Allahabad High Court in Misc. Sales Tax Reference 
No. 137 of 1970). 
12-1234SCI/76 
G 
H 
684 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
S. C. Manchanda, M. V. Goswami and 0. P. Rana, for the Appel-
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
lants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KHANNA, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment 
of Allahabad High Court whereby the High Court answered the follow-
ing question referred to it under section 11 ( 3) of the UP Sales Tax Act 
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) in favour of th<" dealer-respondent 
and against the revenue : 
"Whether the time taken by the dealer in obtaining an-
other copy of the impugned appellate order could be excluded 
for the purpose of limitation for filing revision under section 
10( 1) of the UP Sales Tax Act when one copy of the appel-
late order was served upon the dealer under the provisions of 
the Act?" 
The matter relates to the assessment year 1960-61. An appeal filed 
by the respondent against the order of the Sales Tax Officer was dis-
posed of by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax, Bareilly. 
The copy of the appellate order was s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.