LALTA PRASAD KHINNI LAL versus ASSTT. COMMR, (JUDL.) SALES TAX, KANPUR & ANR.

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 1010 · Decided: 06-10-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1010 
LALTA PRASAD KHINNI LAL 
v .. 
ASSTT. COMMR, (JUDL.) SALES TAX, KANPUR & ANR. 
October 6, 1971 
(K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
U.P. Sa/es Tax Act, 1948, s. 9(6) and Limitation Act, 1908 s. 
5-Sa/es Tax Appeal filed within period of limitation-Amount admitted 
to be due deposited in full after expiry of limitc.tion-Resulting dewy in 
filing appeal whet.her nia,v be condoned. 
The appellant Jas a Hindu undivided fan1ily carrying on the business 
of manufacturing oils. 
For the assessment year 1963-64 the appellant 
filed its quarterly returns undo'r the U.P. Sales Tox Act, 1948. The Sales 
Tax Officer made an assessment enhancing the turnover which resulted in 
increase of the amount of tax. 
The appellant filed an appeal on October 
21, 1965 which was three days' before the period of limitation prescribed 
for filing the appeal was to expire. 
There was some difficulty about the 
encashment of a cheque which had 
been 
deposited 
along 
with 
the 
rest of the cash amount towards payment of the ljffiOunt of tax the lia-
bility for which stood admitted. The total payment was not made if the 
entire amount until May 27, 1966 when the treasury challan was 
pro-
duced. 
The assessee filed an application 
praying for 
condonation of 
delay, if any, in filing the appeal under s. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act 
I Y08 which was applicable by virtue of s. 9( 6) of the U.P, Sales Tax 
Act, 1948. 
The Assistant Commissioner (Judi.) Sales Tax rejected the 
memorandum of appeal as defective on the ground that the deposit of 
tne amount of tax admitted to be due had not been made within the 
period of limitation and that the delay in doing so could not be condoned 
under s. 5 of the Limitation Act. 
The appellant's petition under Art. 
226 challenging the Assistant Commissioner's order was dismissed. 
In 
appeal by certificat10, 
HELD : It is true that an appeal filed under s. 9 of the Act cannot 
be entertained by the appellate authority 
unless 
satisfactory 
proof is 
adduced of the payment of tax admitted by thi> appellant to be due but 
in a case where the amount of admitted tax is deposited after the period 
of limitation has expired all that will happen is that the appeal will oo-
come entertainable only on the day on which satisfactory proof of pay-
ment of that amount is oroduced. 
In other words the appeal will be 
deemed to 
hav1~ been prOperly filed on the date on which the amount 
of admitted tax is paid. If that is beyond the period of 30 days the 
appeal will be barred by time. 
Section 9(6) \Viii immediately become 
applicable to that apoeal and it will bio open to the appellant to apply 
for condonation of delay under that provision. 
It was not possible to 
accept the argument that the deposit of the amount of admitted tax must 
be made within 30 days even thou.eh the delay in filing the appeal can 
be condoned under sub-s. ( 6). 
The correct approach is to treat the 
appeal as having been prefermd on the date on which proof of payment 
of the tax was furnished and then to see whether under sub-s. ( 6) of 
s. 9 there was sufficient cause for excusing the delay in preferring the 
appeal. [1013 E-1014 BJ 
Gangadharan Pillai v. Sales Tax Officer (Reserve) Ernakulam, 16 
S.T.C. 
578 
and Raja of Venkatagiri v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 
Madra~. 28 J.T.R. 188, approved. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
LALTA PRASAD v. COMMR, S.T. (Grover, J.) 
101-1 
A 
Janta Cycle & Motpr Mart v. Asstt. Commissioner (!.) 111, Sales Tax 
Kanpur Range & Ahr. 22 S.T.C. 94, disapproved. 
Lakshmiratan Enginee.ring Works Ltd. v .. Asstt. Commissioner 
(/), 
I Sales Tax, Kanpur, 21 S.T.C. 154, distinguished. 
In the present case when the assessee produced the necessary docu-
ments which showied that the deposit of the full amount had been made 
B 
by May 27, 1966 the appeal became entertainable. It only suffered from 
the ddect that it was barred by time on that date. The assessee could, 
therefore, apply under s., 9.(6) for extending the period of Jin1itation 
in 
accordance with s. 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellate authority was 
wrong in disposing of the appeal on the short grOl\Od thaf it had no 
jurisdiction to extend the period of limitation. [1015 B-D] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[Appeal allmved and case remitted to High Court for making appro-
priate directions for reconsideration and rellloaring of the appeal by the 
appellate authority under the Act.] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2571 of 
1969. 
Appeal from the

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