ONKARMAL JWALAPROSAD AND ORS. Vs. COMMR. OF TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are applications under Section 32 of the Assam Sales Tax Act of 1947 (17 of 1947) on the basis of which the Commissioner of Taxes, Assam was directed by this Court to state a case. Some of these applications also purport to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but the applications were not pressed on that ground. At the close of the arguments, a faint attempt was made by Mr. P. Choudhuri to press these applications, in the alternative, under Article 227 of the Constitution. But we were unable to entertain the plea. In our opinion, the scope and object of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution are entirely different from those of an application under Section 32 of the Assam Sales Tax Act. We were, therefore, reluctant to treat these applications as under Article 227 of the Constitution and I propose to deal with them as under Section 32 of the Assam Sales Tax Act.

(2.) THE applications involve a common question regarding the law of limitation Dependent upon the interpretation of Sections 31 and 32 of the Sales Tax Act. They were, therefore, ordered to be heard together. When these applications came up before a Division Bench of the Court presided over by me, we realised that the question involved was almost covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in - -'Rahman Stores v. Commr. of Taxes, Assam' : AIR 1953 Gau 144 (A). The correctness of this decision was, however, seriously challenged by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, & prima facie we were inclined to think that the matter required reconsideration. We, therefore, directed that these applications should be heard by a larger Bench.

(3.) THE substantial contention of the Petitioners is that although the Appellate authority passed his orders on a certain date in respect of the cases, the orders were passed in the absence of the Petitioners, there, being no provision in the law or practice followed by the Taxing authorities for delivering these orders on any fixed date or at any fixed place after intimation thereof to the parties affected. The orders were communicated to the Petitioners' through post when they hastened to apply for certified copies of them in the regular course and then presented their respective applications under Section 31 or 32 of the Act after obtaining the relevant certified copies. The Petitioners submit that if the period of limitation is counted from the date of communication of the orders to the Petitioners and the time requisite for obtaining certified copies of these orders is taken into account, then the applications presented under Sections 31 and 32 of the Act could not be held to be barred by limitation.