MANDOO BROTHERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very short point arises for consideration in this writ petition. The petitioner seems to have filed a revision petition before the Commissioner Sales Tax on 16th February, 1981. That revision petition came to be dismissed by the Commissioner on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioner had filed an appeal against the pride of Assessment before the Deputy Sale Tax Commissioner Kashmir for setting aside the said order. His appeal was dismissed by an order dated 9.9.1980. As required under the provisions of Sales Tax Act and the Rules framed there under, order of the appeal late authority was notified to the petitioner on 1.10.1980. Petitioner had applied for issuance of certified copy of the order of appellate authority on 4.10.1980 according to the respondents which copy is said to have been annexed with the writ petition which is said to have been filed by the petitioner in the High Court in October, 1980. The said writ petition was, however, dismissed in limine because the petitioner had not availed of the alternative remedy of filing revision before the Commissioner. For filing the revision petition, it was imperative for the petitioner to annex certified copy with the revision petition. Therefore he had applied afresh for issuance of certified copy of the appellate courts order. That application is said to have been moved by the petitioner on 18.10.1980 and he was given certified copy on 1.1.1981. Thereafter he is said to have filed a revision petition on 16.2.1980.

(3.) PETITIONERS case is that from 18.10.1980 that is when he applied for the certified copy of the order to the date of issuance of the certified copy i.e. on L1.H81, the entire period is to be excluded under section 12 of the Limitation Act which is made applicable to the revisional proceedings under the Sales Tax Act. By excluding that period his revision petition would be within time. It is contended that on 18 10 1980 when he applied for certified copy, period for limitation for filing the revision petition had not expired. On the aforesaid basis, it is contended that the Commissioner has overstepped his jurisdiction by going into extraneous matters which was not relevant at all for purposes of treating a revision petition within time or barred by time.