Skip to content


Gamsha Pipe Ltd. Vs. the State of Haryana - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax;Limitation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberGeneral Sales Tax Reference No. 5 of 1974
Judge
Reported in[1977]39STC546(P& H)
AppellantGamsha Pipe Ltd.
RespondentThe State of Haryana
Appellant Advocate B.K. Jhingan and; R.L. Sharma, Advs.
Respondent Advocate Naubat Singh, Assistant Adv.-General
Cases ReferredLucknow v. Parson Tools and Plants
Excerpt:
.....much wider and more liberal, intermediary or interlocutory judgment fall in the category of orders referred to clause (a) to (w) of order 43, rule 1 and also such other orders which poses the characteristic and trapping of finality and may adversely affect a valuable right of a party or decide an important aspect of a trial in an ancillary proceeding. amended section 100-a of the code clearly stipulates that where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single judge of a high court, no further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section..........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.
Judgment:

O. Chinnappa Reddy, Ag. C.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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //