SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(P&H) 113

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
O.Chinnappa Reddy and M.R.Sharma JJ.
Gamsha Pipe Ltd.
Versus
State Of Haryana
General Sales Tax Reference No. 5 of 1974,
Decided On : OCTOBER 13, 1976

The court established that Section 5 read with Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, is not applicable to proceedings before the Sales Tax Tribunal under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973.

Headnote:

Limitation Act - Sales Tax Tribunal - The court held that Section 5 read with Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, is not applicable to proceedings before the Sales Tax Tribunal under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973.

Fact of the Case:

The assessee's appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana was dismissed as time-barred, and the application to condone the delay was rejected.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the question referred to them had to be answered against the assessee based on a previous judgment. The court also noted that the Tribunal declined to refer another question related to the timing of the appeal presentation.

Issues: The main issue was the applicability of Section 5 read with Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, to proceedings before the Sales Tax Tribunal under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by a previous judgment and the Tribunal's refusal to refer another question related to the timing of the appeal presentation.

Final Decision: The question referred to the court was answered against the assessee, and no order as to costs was given.

Judgment

O.Chinnappa Reddy, J.

1. The assessee filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, which was dismissed as time-barred. An application to condone the delay under Sections 5 and 29 of the Limitation Act was also rejected. At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to us for our decision :

Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, Section 5 read with Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, is applicable to proceedings before the Sales Tax Tribunal under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 ?

2. There cannot be the slightest doubt that this question as framed has to be answered against the assessee in view of the judgment in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow v. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur [1975] 35 S.T.C 413 (S.C).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urges that the appeal to the Tribunal was presented within sixty days from the date of the communication of the order to the assessee, though not within sixty days from the date of the order. He, therefore, urges that there was no need to have the delay condoned. The assessee sought a reference of this question also, but the Tribunal expressly declined to refer this question. We are, therefore, not in a position to say anything about this aspect of the case. The question referred to us is answered against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top