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

1952 Supreme(All) 38

SAPRU, WALI ULLAH
AMRITSAR SUGAR MILL CO. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER, SALES TAX – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
HARI SVARUP


WALI ULLAH, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 11 (2) (b), U. P. Sales Tax Act (Act XV [15] of 1948 ). This application was filed on 1-2-1932. Under Section 11 (2) of the Act it was necessary to file this application within 30 days of the refusal by the revising authority, i. e. , Judge (Revision) to refer to the High Court any question of law. There is a report by the Stamp Reporter of the Court that the application is beyond limitation by 16 days. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that if the time required for obtaining a copy of the order refusing to state a case be taken into account, the application made must be held to be within time.

( 2 ) THE question which we have to decide is whether the benefit of Section 12, Limitation Act is available to the applicant in this case. It is clear that there is no provision in regard to this matter contained in the Sales Tax Act. All that it lays down is that such an application, as this must be made within " thirty days of such refusal. " Learned counsel has, however, contended that the general provision contained in the Limitation Act--Section 29 (2) (a)--read in the light of the provision













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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top