THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW versus PARSON TOOLS AND PLANTS, KANPUR

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 743 · Decided: 27-02-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
D 
I 
F' 
G 
H 
743 
THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, UTTAR PRADESH, 
LUCKNOW 
v. 
PARSON TOOLS AND PLANTS, KANPUR 
February 27, 1975. 
[Y. v. CH.'1NDRACHUD, R. s. SARKARIA AND A. c. GUPTA, JJ.] 
Interpretation of Statutes-Legislature wilfully omitting to i11corporate a11 
analogou.t law in subsequent stature-Language plain a11J unambiguous-Courts 
if competent to supply the omissio11 by analogy or implicatio11. 
lliterpretation of Statutes-Lmv of . limitatio11-Speciil/ stalll!e. prescribing 
certain period of limitation-Provi.iion for extension upto specified time-limit 011 
sufficient cau~e being shown-Time-limit, if could be extended on anology of 
s. 14(2) of Limitation Act. 
U.P. Sales Tax A.ct, 1948 and U.P. Sa/es-tilx Rules, Rule 68-Appe/late 
Authority and Judge (Revisions) under the Act, if Courts within the meaning 
of s. 14(2) of Limitation Act. 
U.P. Sales Tax A.ct, 1948, s. 10(3) (i) and s. 10(3B)-Revisio11 applhatio11 
-Revising Authority not conferred with discretion to extend period of limitation 
heyo11d six months even on sufficient cause shown-Principle of s. 14(2) of 
Limitation Act, if could be imported into :r. 10(38) by analogy. 
The SaleJ-Tax Officer a'lse»~d tax for the assessment years 1958-1959· and 
1959-60, on the respondent assessee by two separate orders. The assessee filed 
appwls against those orders before the Appellate Authority. 
On May 10, 1963, 
when the appeals came up for hearing, the assessec was absent. 
The aprcals 
were, therefore, dismissed in default by virtue of Rule 68(5) of tl:e U.P. Sales-tax 
Rules.. 
Snb-.rule ( 6) of Rule 68 provided for setting aside wch dismissal and for 
re-admission of the appeal. 
On the s;cme day (May 10, 1963), the as·;essee 
made two applications in accordance with Sub-rule (6) for settin.~ aside the 
di~missal. Du.oing the pendency of those applkations. Subrnle (5) of Rule 68 
was declared ultra vires the rule-making authority 
hy Manchanda J. 
of the 
High Court who further held that the Appellate-Authority could not dismi5' an 
appeal in default bu; was bound to decide it on merits even though the .1ppeliant 
be absent. 
When these applications under r. 68(6) cirme up for hearing .. on 
20-10-64, the AppelJate-Authority dismissed them outright in view of the ruling 
of Manchanda .T. 
Against the order of dismissal of his appeals, the assessee on 
16-12-1964 filed two revision petitions under s. 10 of the Sales-tax Act, before 
the [Judge (Revisions) Sale5-taX]. 
These revisions petitions having been filed 
more than 18 months after the dismissirl of the appeals,-which was the.maximum 
period of limitation pres,:ribed by sub-s. (3) of s. 10-were prima facie time-
barred. They were however, accompanied by two applications in which the 
assessee prayed for exclusion of the time spent by him in prosecuting the abortive 
)Jfocecdings under r. 68(6) for setting aside the dismissal of bis appeals. 
The 
Revi5ional Authority found that the a~sessee had been pursuing his remedy under 
r, 68(6) with due diligence and in good faith. 
It therefore excluded the time 
spent in those proceedings from computation of limitation by applying s. 14, 
Limita'ion Act and in consequence. held that the revision petitions were within 
time. 
On the motion of the Commissioner of Sales-tax. the Judge (Revisions) 
Sales-!ax made two references under s. J 1( 1) of the Sale'l-ta~ Act to the High 
Court for answering the following question of law : 
"Whether under the drcumstooces of the case, s. 14 of the Limitation A~l 
extended the period for filing of the revisions by the time during which 
t)le restoration applications remained pending as being prosecuted bona fide." 
The referencee were heard by a Full Bench of three learned Judges. each 
of whom wrote a separate Judgment. 
Dwivedi t with whom Singh J. a11.reed 
atter ccframing the question held "that the time spent in prosecutinc tne applica-
tion for setling a·side the order of dismissal of appeals in default can be 
744 
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] 3 s.c.R • 
excluded from computing the period of limitation for filing the revision by the 
application of the principle underlying s. 14(2). Limitation Act." 
Hari Swarup J. was of the opinion: "The Judge (Revisions) Sales-tax while 
hearing the revisions under s. 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act does not act as. a 
Court hut only as a revenue tribunal and hence the provisions of the Indian 
Limitation Act cannot apply to proceedings before him. If the Limitation

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