Skip to content


S. Mehar Chand Krishan Kumar Vs. the State of Haryana - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSales Tax Case No. 2 of 1969
Judge
Reported in[1971]28STC643(P& H)
AppellantS. Mehar Chand Krishan Kumar
RespondentThe State of Haryana
Appellant Advocate G.C. Mittal and; S.N. Garg, Advs.
Respondent Advocate M.S. Jain, Adv. for;Adv. General
DispositionApplication dismissed
Cases ReferredState of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum A.I.R.
Excerpt:
.....judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - in this situation, the present applications fail and are dismissed......against the decision of the financial commissioner, haryana, dated 26th may, 1961, requiring the sales tax tribunal, haryana, to refer questions of law arising out of his order disposing of the assessment under the sales tax act against the petitioners for the opinion of this court. these applications to the sales tax tribunal were made under section 22(1) of the act and were rejected by him on the short ground that they were barred by limitation. 3. it is common ground that the period of limitation for an application under section 22(1) is sixty days from the passing of the order out of which the questions of law sought to be referred arise. there is no dispute that neither the petitioners nor their counsel were present when the order was passed. we are also proceeding on the ground.....
Judgment:

1. This order will dispose of Sales Tax Cases Nos. 2 and 3 of 1969. The question involved in both these cases is the same and, therefore, they are being disposed of by one order.

2. Both these cases arise out of applications under Section 22 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. These applications were filed for a reference against the decision of the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, dated 26th May, 1961, requiring the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, to refer questions of law arising out of his order disposing of the assessment under the Sales Tax Act against the petitioners for the opinion of this Court. These applications to the Sales Tax Tribunal were made under Section 22(1) of the Act and were rejected by him on the short ground that they were barred by limitation.

3. It is common ground that the period of limitation for an application under Section 22(1) is sixty days from the passing of the order out of which the questions of law sought to be referred arise. There is no dispute that neither the petitioners nor their counsel were present when the order was passed. We are also proceeding on the ground that no communication of the order was sent by the Commissioner to the petitioners or their counsel. The fact of the matter is that the petitioners somehow or other came to know of the order and on 5th of June, 1967, applied for a certified copy of that order and the same was supplied to them on 6th of June, 1967. Obviously, therefore, the petitioners had knowledge of the order on 6th of June, 1967, and the limitation would start running from this date. They made the application under Section 22(1) on 7th August, 1967, but the requisite fee for such an application was paid on the 8th of August, 1967. Therefore, a proper application would only be deemed to have been made on 8th of August, 1967, and, in any event, even if the application be taken to have been filed on the 7th August, 1967, it is beyond the period of limitation prescribed. The period prescribed expired on the 5th August, 1967. The view we have taken of the matter finds support from the following decisions:

(1) Govindji v. Commissioner of Saks Tax, Madhya Pradesh [1955] 6 S.T.C. 183, (2) Director of Supplies and Disposals, Calcutta v. Member, Board of Revenue, Government of West Bengal [1960] 11 S.T.C. 589 and (3) State of Punjab v. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1604.

4. Therefore, there is no error in the order of the Tribunal in rejecting the application under Section 22(1) of the Act as barred by limitation. In this situation, the present applications fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in either of these two applications.


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