DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX ADMN DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX RECOVERY Vs. BOARD OF INDUSTRIAL FINANCE RECONST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule D.B. with the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal:

(2.) The only point urged in the present application is that the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short the "AAIFR") was not justified in holding that the petitioner's appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Learned counsel for contesting respondents submitted that AAIFR's conclusions are on terra firma. Therefore the only question that needs adjudication is whether the view of the AAIFR was correct.

(3.) For resolution of the controversy the factual position, which is almost undisputed needs to be noted in brief. . The Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short the "BIFR") passed an order dated 3rd April 1997 in respect of a petition filed by GTC Industries Ltd. under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 (in short the 'Act'). Petitioner was not a party before the BIFR. It filed an appeal No. 10/99 on 19th November 1998. AAIFR held that while computing the period of limitation, prescribed under Section 25 of the Act the period from 29th April 1998 to 9th September 1998 has to be included. For coming to aforesaid conclusion AAIFR noted that respondent No. 3/company who was the applicant before the BIFR had alongwith its letter dated 29th April 1998 enclosed a copy of the order passed by BIFR. Stand of petitioner was that on coming to know of order passed by BIFR, an inspection was made of the records on 20th August 1998, and an application for certified copy was filed on the same date. The certified copy was made available on 9th September 1998. Appeal was filed on 19th November 1998 and therefore period from 29th April 1998 to 9th September 1998 has no relevance. As indicated above, AAIFR came to the conclusion that the supply of copy of the order passed by BIFR to the Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes constitutes a proper service and the starting point of limitation has to be from the date it was so supplied i.e. 29th April 1998. An application for review of the order was also not entertained and rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that conclusions of AAIFR about starting point of limitation are clearly untenable because of the clear language used in Section 25 of the Act.. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submitted that after the order of the BIFR was passed follow up action has been taken. According to him, the date on which the Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes received copy of the order "should be construed to be the starting point of limitatior