LOON KARAN BARARIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Statement of case under Section 33(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act"), has been submitted by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna, and the following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court: Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the time requisite for obtaining certified copy should commence from 6th June, 1968, the date of receipt of the application for the copy by the authority concerned and not from 3rd June, 1968, the date on which the application was posted by the applicant ?

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this case may be stated in a very narrow compass. The assessee M/s. Loon Karan Bararia is a registered dealer at Kishanganj in the district of Purnea. It was assessed for sales tax for the year 1964-65 by an order of assessment dated the 7th June, 1966. An appeal having been preferred by the dealer before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the same was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order dated 6th April, 1968. On 3rd June, 1968, the dealer sent by registered post an application for the grant of certified copy of the order dated 6th April, 1968. This application for certified copy was received by the authority on 6th June, 1968, and the copy was ready and delivered to the assessee on 8th July, 1968. The dealer thereafter filed an application in revision on 12th July, 1968, before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bhagalpur. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petition of revision summarily on the ground that it was barred by limitation even after taking into account the time taken in obtaining the certified copy from 6th June, 1968, to 8th July, 1968. Against that revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner, the dealer preferred a further revision before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by a majority of two members to one held against the dealer negativing the contention put forward on behalf of the dealer that the period eligible for deduction for obtaining the certified copy should be computed from 3rd June, 1968, and not 6th June, 1968. While the two learned members of the Tribunal held that the date of making the application for the certified copy would in law be deemed to be 6th June, 1968, when the application was received by the authority concerned, one learned member held that the date of making the application should be 3rd June, 1968, when the application was made through registered post by the dealer.

(3.) The short point for determination in this case is as to whether the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy of the order should be reckoned from 3rd June, 1968, when the dealer made an application by registered post or from 6th June, 1968, when the application was actually received in the office of the authority concerned.