The court clarified that the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, being a tribunal and not a court, does not have the jurisdiction to invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing an application for reference.

Headnote:AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX - APPLICATIONS FOR REFERENCE - ACT 22 OF 1950 - The court analyzed the provisions of Section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, which requires an application for reference to be submitted within sixty days of the date upon which a copy of the order of the Tribunal is served on the applicant. The court discussed the regulations made by the Appellate Tribunal, which allowed for the presentation of applications by registered post. However, the court held that the applications for reference were presented to the Tribunal beyond the time fixed by the statute and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to condone the delay. The court cited the decision in Commissioner of Sales-tax, U.P. v. Madan Lal Das & Sons, Bareilly (38 S.T.C. 543) to support its conclusion that the Tribunal cannot invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. The court also referred to the decision in K. K. Ibrahimkutty v. The State of Kerala, which held that the Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing a memorandum of cross-objections. However, the court distinguished this case from the present case, stating that the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is not a court and therefore cannot invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court concluded that the applications for reference were not submitted within the time allowed by the Act and dismissed the original petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax submitted applications to the Appellate Tribunal, under Section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, requesting the Tribunal to refer certain questions of law to the High Court. The applications were sent by registered post within the prescribed time, but were received by the Tribunal after the time fixed by the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the applications on the ground of delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the applications for reference were not submitted within the time allowed by the Act and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to condone the delay.
Issues:
Whether the applications for reference were submitted within the time allowed by the Act and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to condone the delay.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court interpreted the provisions of Section 60(1) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act and the regulations made by the Appellate Tribunal. The court held that the applications for reference were presented to the Tribunal beyond the time fixed by the statute and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to condone the delay. The court relied on the decision in Commissioner of Sales-tax, U.P. v. Madan Lal Das & Sons, Bareilly (38 S.T.C. 543) to support its conclusion.
Final Decision:
The court dismissed the original petitions, holding that the applications for reference were not submitted within the time allowed by the Act and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to condone the delay.

Judgment :-

1. These Original Petitions are by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, Kerala, under sub-section (4) of S.60 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act 1950 (Act 22 of 1950)- hereinafter referred to as the Act-for the issue of a direction to the Appellate Tribunal of Agricultural Income-tax, Kozhikode to treat the applications submitted by him under sub-section (1) of S.60 of the Act, to the Appellate Tribunal, as made within time and for a further direction to the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the said applications under S.60 (1) on merits and in accordance with law. In all these cases, the Commissioner of Agricultural income-tax submitted applications to the Appellate Tribunal, under sub-section (1) of S.60 of the Act requiring the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer certain questions of law said to be arising out of the order of the Tribunal, to the High Court. Sub-section (1) of S.60 of the Act requires an application for reference to be submitted to the Tribunal within sixty days of the date upon which a copy of the order of the Tribunal is served on the applicant. The Jast day for presenting the reference application before the Tribunal in all these cases was on 16121976 The applications were sent by registered post from Trivandrum on 14121976, but were received in the Office of the Tribunal only on 20-12-1976. The Tribunal dismissed the reference applications on the ground that the applications are not presented within the time allowed by sub-section (I) of S.60 of the Act and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in presenting the applications for reference. The order of the Tribunal dismissing the applications for reference in each of these cases is produced as Annexure A in these Original Petitions It is on dismissal of the applications for reference that these Original Petitions have been filed by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, before this Court under sub-section (4) of S 60 of the Act to direct the Appellate Tribunal to treat the applications under S 60(1) as submitted within time and to direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the questions of law raised, to this Court.

2. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Commissioner, has raised two questions of law before us namely: (1) that the delivery of the applications to the Post Office for transmission to the Appellate Tribunal should be treated as presentation of the applications for reference under sub-section

(1) of S.60 of the Act and if so treated, the applications should be held to have submitted in time and (2) that the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in its view that it has no jurisdiction to condone the delay in presenting the applications for reference under S.60 (1) of the Act.

3. As has been noticed earlier, an application for reference under S.60 (1) of the Act, is to be submitted within sixty days of the date upon which the order of the Appellate Tribunal under S.32 (5) is served on the applicant. The applications for reference are sent by registered post within time, but had been received in the Office of the Tribunal after the time fixed under S.60 (1) of the Act. The contention on behalf of the Commissioner ' is that by virtue of the Regulations of the Appellate Tribunal, made under S.16 (4) of the Act, despatch by registered post is a proper presentation of the application and the date of presentation should be construed as the date on which the application is delivered to the Post Office to be sent by registered post. Sub-section (4) of S 16 of the Act is as follows:

"16. (4): The Appellate Tribunal shall, with the previous sanction of the Government, make regulations consistent with the provisions of this Act, and the rules made thereunder, for regulating its procedure and the disposal of its business."

Regulations were made by the Appellate Tribunal and published in the Kerala Gazette dated 6th April, 1965. Regulation.20 is as follows:

"20. Presentati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document