CHIRANJI LAL AND BROS Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following three questions of law have been referred by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, by his order dated 30th October, 1958, under Section 21 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union territory of Delhi :-

(2.) THE circumstances giving rise to this reference are that Chiranji Lal and Brothers (hereafter referred to as the assessee) filed a revision petition before the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, on 5th February, 1958, against an order of the Sales Tax Commissioner dated 21st November, 1957. The Chief Commissioner by his order dated 18th July, 1958, held that the revision was barred by time, having been filed after the expiry of sixty days, the period prescribed for filing revision petitions. The Chief Commissioner has not given detailed reasons in the judgment and has only relied on two earlier orders passed by him in D. C. M. v. The Sales Tax Commissioner and Fauja Singh and Ors. v. The Sales Tax Commissioner. We have had no access to those decisions of the Chief Commissioner, but from the nature of the questions referred to us it appears that the Chief Commissioner took the view that though the rules framed under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union territory of Delhi (hereafter referred to as the said Act), required a certified copy of the order of the Sales Tax Commissioner to accompany the revision petition, but still the time requisite for obtaining such copy was not to be excluded in computing the period of limitation.

(3.) RULE 62 of the said Act requires that the memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the order appealed against. Rule 66 (1) makes the provisions of Rule 62 applicable mutatis mutandis to every application for revision. Under Rule 66 (2) the period prescribed for filing a revision application is 60 days from the date of communication of the impugned order. Proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 confers power on the concerned authority to extend time, on sufficient cause being shown, for resenting the application. On 17th January, 1959, an explanation was added to Rule 66, reading: "in computing the period of limitation prescribed in this rule for revision of an order, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order sought to be revised shall be excluded. " Since we are concerned with the period prior to the introduction of this explanation, it is common ground between the parties that the questions have to be answered on the footing that that explanation does not exist.