- (1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of Allahabad High Court whereby the High Court answered the following question referred to it under Section 11 (3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in favour of the dealer respondent and against the revenue. "Whether the time taken by the dealer in obtaining another copy of the impugned appellate order could be excluded for the purpose of limitation for filing revision under Section 10(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act when one copy of the appellate order was served upon the dealer under the provisions of the Act - The matter relates to the assessment year 1960-61. An appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the Sales Tax Officer was disposed of by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax, Bareilly. The copy of the appellate order was served on the dealer-respondent on August 2, 1965. The respondent, it appears, lost the copy of the appellate order which had been served upon him. On June 15, 1966 the respondent made an application for obtaining another copy of the above order. The copy was ready on August 17, 1967 and was delivered to the respondent on the following day, i.e. August 18, 1967. Revision under Section 10 of the Act was thereafter filed by the respondent before the Judge (Revision) Sales Tax on September 9, 1967. Sub-section (3-B) of Section 10 of the Act prescribes the period of limitation for filing such a revision. According to that sub-section such a revision application "shall be made within one year from the date of service of the order complained of but the Revising Authority may on proof of sufficient cause entertain an application within a further period of six months." Question was then agitated before the Judge (Revision) as to whether the revision application was within time. The respondent claimed that under Section 12 (2) of the Limitation Act, he was entitled to exclude in computing the period of limitation for filing the revision, the time spent for obtaining a copy of the appellant order. This contention was accepted by the Judge (Revision). He also observed that the fact that the said copy was not required to be filed along with the revision petition would not stand in the way of the respondent relying upon Sec. 12 (2) of the Limitation Act. The Judge (Revision) thereafter dealt with the merits of the case and partly allowed the revision petition. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the question reproduced above was referred to the High Court. The High Court, as stated above, answered the question in favour of the respondent and in doing so placed reliance upon the provisions of Sec. 12 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Act 36 of 1963) which reads as under: "(2) In computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded." It may be stated that the language of Section 12 (2) of the Act of 1963 is in variance with that of Section 12 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (Act 9 of 1908) so far as the applicability of Section 12 (2) is concerned in computing the period of limitation for filing revision application. Section 12 (2) of the Indian Limitation act, 1908 read as under: "(2) In computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, an application for leave to appeal and an application for a review of judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced, and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be reviewed, shall be excluded." Bare perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act of 1908 would show that it did not deal with the period of limitation prescribed for an application for revision. As against that, the language of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act of 1963 makes it manifest that its provisions would also apply in computing the period of limitation for application for revision. There can, therefore, be no manner of doubt that in a case like the present which is governed by the Act of 1963, the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 12 can be invoked for computing the period of limitation for the application for revision if the other necessary conditions are fulfilled.
(2.) It is, however, contended by Mr. Manchanda that the U. P. Sales Tax Act constitutes a complete code in itself and as that Act prescribes the period of limitation for filing of revision petition, the High Court was in error in relying upon the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This contention, in our opinion, is wholly bereft of force.
(3.) Sub-section (2) of Sec. 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as under: "(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.";