HARIPRASAD ANANDKUMAR Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Tribunal constituted under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") passed in these second appeals, the petitioner made three applications before the Tribunal under Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the Act for referring certain questions to this Court for its opinion. These applications were dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that since they were not accompanied with certified copies of the order of the Tribunal passed in the second appeals, they were not maintainable. The order of the Tribunal is dated 14th May, 1982, a copy whereof is annexed as annexure C to the petition. It is this order which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Tribunal to consider the reference applications on merits and pass suitable orders thereon.

(2.) IT has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal committed a manifest error of law in dismissing the applications made by the petitioner under Section 44 (1) of the Act on the aforesaid ground. We find substance in this submission.

(3.) IN Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah AIR 1955 SC 425 it was held by the Supreme Court that a code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is procedure something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties ; not a thing designed to trip people up. Of course, there may be exceptions and where they were clearly defined, they must be given effect to: