MITHHALAL HAJARILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision preferred against the judgment of the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Appeals) Kota Division, Kota, dated 15. 4. 60, by the assessee M/s. Mithhalal Hajarilal of Gangapur, a preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the learned Govt. Advocate for the Sales Tax Deptt. that the copy of the judgment filed along with the memorandum of revision is not a "certified true copy" as required by Rule 40 read with Rule 33 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955. Rule 40 says that the provisions of Rules 33 to 38 shall apply in respect of application for revision, procedure for revision and other matters connected therewith in the same manner as they apply to appeals with such modifications as may be necessary. Rule 33lays down that the memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by "a certified copy" of the order sought to be challenged. " This means an application for revision should also be accompanied by a"certified copy of the order sought to be challenged". The term "certified" has not been defined in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act or these Rules, and therefore it shall be taken to mean what it generally means in relation to the appeals and revisions under other enactments. It has been generally held in all such cases that the copy required to accompany the memorandum of appeal or the application for revision should be a copy certified to be a true one. Unless, therefore, the copy accompanying the application for revision is not a copy so certified to be true, it cannot be taken to be a "certified copy" for the purposes of the requirements of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 and the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 providing the revision.

(2.) THE copy submitted in the present case along with the application for revision preferred by the applicant to the Addl. Commissioner Sales Tax Rajasthan, Jaipur on 2. 6. 60 and which has been since transferred as a result of a change in law to the Board is not, a copy certified to be a true one. On the other hand it is only a copy endorsed to the applicant by the Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax (Appeals) Kota, vide his No. ST/1728, dated 10. 5. 60. This copy was not taken by the learned Addl. Commissioner also to be a "certified true copy" for the purposes of revision and the applicant was asked to file a "certified copy of the order challenged". This case, on transfer to the Board, remained pending for a very long time in waiting for a ' decision by the Full Bench as to which Court would hear the revisions filed before the amendment of the Sales Tax Act empowering the Board to hear this revision. It was on 29. 6. 61, notwithstanding the orders of the learned Addl. Commissioner as back as 2. 6. 60 requiring the production of a "certified copy", that the applicant preferred an application to the Board that the copy produced by him already was a properly sealed and signed to be a true copy and that it had been filed according to the past practice and tradition resulting in bona fide belief that the application for revision had been properly filed and that the other type of "certified copy" if necessary could be filed at any stage including the stage of hearing ; and further he also submitted another copy certified to be a true one along with this application. He has also made a request to treat the revision within limitation on the grounds stated in his application. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the Govt. Advocate fully in this behalf.