The period of limitation for filing a reference to the High Court under Sec.25(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, is computed from the date of passing the order by the Board of Revenue, not from the date of communication of the order to the assessee.

1. This case is stated by the Board of Revenue under Sec.25(1), Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Act 19 of 1947) at the instance of the assessee Telu Ram Jain.

2. While making certain enquiries under Sec.13 (5), Bihar Sales Tax Act, the Sales Tax Officer, Dhanbad, discovered that the assessee, who was employed as a contractor at Sindri, had received in the year 1947-48 a sum of Rs. 4,94,000.00 and odd on account of the execution of contracts from the Central Public Works Department. In spite of his being employed in the execution of contracts the assessee had not applied for registration; nor did he pay sales tax from 1-4-1948. After examining the accounts of the assessee the Sales Tax Officer made an assessment of sales tax to the extent of Rs. 14,000.00 for the first three quarters of 1947-48. The assessment order was made on 31-3-1949. Aggrieved by this order of assessment Telu Ram Jain preferred two appeals to the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The appeals were dismissed on 8-10-1949. Thereafter, the assessee applied for revision before the Board of Revenue by two separate petitions. The" Board of Revenue heard the parties on 1-3-1950, and rejected the petitions by an order dated 5-3-1950. The assessee then filed two applications to the Board of Revenue for making a reference to the High Court on certain questions of law mentioned therein. The applications were filed on 31-7-1950. The Board of Revenue heard lawyers of the parties on 7-4-1951, and made the present reference under Sec.25(1) of the Act on 19-6-1951.

3. The following questions of law have been formulated in the statement of the case :

"(1) whether a petition filed under Sec.25 of the Act after the expiry of 90 days from the date of the passing of the orders by the Board can be admitted or not?

(2) whether in the circumstances of this case, and in consideration of the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, the two firms should be treated as separate dealers or not, and whether Taluram Jain alone can be assessed to sales tax on the contracts obtained by him from the Central Public Works Department?

(3) whether the Amending Act, 6 of 1949, can be applied, as it appears to be the intention of the legislature to correct the 1947 Act, with effect from the date of its first publication, and whether the petitioners have been rightly assessed under the 1947 Act as amended by the 1947 Act? And

(4) whether the Amending Act, which was extended to Chota Nagpur on 22-3-49, would govern the proceedings which were commenced on 13-1-49?"

4. When the argument of the case commenced Mr. Gopal Prasad, who appears on behalf of the Advocate General, raised a preliminary objection that the application filed by the assessee under Sec.25(1) of the Act was not maintainable on the ground that it was not made within 90 days of the passing of the order in revision by the Board of Revenue. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that if this preliminary question was decided in favour of the Department, it was not necessary for the High Court to examine or determine the other questions of law formulated in the statement of the case. The question of limitation is the first question of 3aw which is formulated by the Board of Revenue and we propose to examine this question at the outset.

5. On behalf of the assessee Mr Untwallia addressed a careful argument in the course of which he cited a number of authorities bearing on the question of limitation. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that in this case the Board of Revenue heard the revision applications on 1-3-1950. The judgment was reserved on that date but the Board of Revenue after consideration pronounced judgment on 5-3-1950, dismissing the revision applications. It is alleged on behalf of the assessee that on 3-6-1950, a post-card was sent to the assessee from the office of the Board of Revenue intimating to the assessee that the applications had been dismissed. The post-card was actually received by the assesse on 6-6-1950, throug