HARLAL VAISHYA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner desiring to file a revision under Section 39 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, sent his revision application by registered post on 7th October, 1976. The limitation for revision is one year and according to the department would expire on 7th October, 1976. The revision thus sent reached the authority concerned on 12th October, 1976. The revising authority after giving a show cause notice as was necessary under the Rules, dismissed the revision on the ground that it was not made within the period of limitation. In the view taken by the department, the revision application, even though sent by post, ought to have reached the revising authority before the limitation expired. The petitioner seeks to challenge this order by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) SECTION 39 (1) (b) provides for a dealer to make a revision application within the prescribed period. Under Rule 57 (4) a revision application has to be, as far as possible, in form XXVII and shall be presented within 12 months from the date of the order against which it is filed. Under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 57, the applicant is given a choice either to present it himself or through his authorised agent or to send it by registered post to such an authority. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the revision application, when sent by registered post, must be sent in such a manner that it ought to reach the revising authority before the period of limitation expired or whether it was enough if the revision application was given to the postal authorities within the period of limitation for being sent to the revising authority and when such an application was given to the postal authorities within the period of limitation it was inconsequential as to when it reached the revising authority.

(3.) THE Board relied on its decision in Hukumat Rai v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1964 RN 148. The Board was of the view that the key word in the section is "filed". The revision cannot be taken to have been filed unless it reaches the authority concerned. It was then observed that the provision of sending by post was not meant to give a latitude to the applicant in a way that the revision application would not reach the authority concerned within the period of limitation. The Board also relied on a decision of the Nagpur High Court in Motilal Hiralal Sisodia v. Commissioner of Income-tax AIR 1951 Nag 224.