ASTHANA, J. - (1.) THESE are three References at the instance of the assessee in all of which a similar question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court under S. 11 of the Act U. P. ST Act, hereinafter referred to as the "Act". On 28th Feb., 1966, the CTO passed three ex-party orders against the assessee fro the years 1962-63 1963-64 and 1964-65. In respect of these three assessments the assessee took two remedies permitted to him by law. He filed three applications under S. 30 of the Act for setting aside the expert assessment orders. He filed three appeals also under S. 9 of the Act before the Asst. CIT (Judicial).
(2.) THE STO dismissed all the three applications under S. 30 of the Act holding them to be time barred. The Asst. CIT (Judicial), however, in the appeals rejected the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Department and held that the appeals were not time barred as they were filed within the prescribed limit from the date of service of the notice and the copy of the assessment orders on the assessee. On merits, the order of the STO in respect of all the three years was modified and the turnover was substantially reduced in respect of each year. The Department then went up in revision before the Revising Authority under S. 10 of the Act against the orders of the Appellate Authority in all the three appeals. The main controversy in the revisions centred round the question of limitation. It was contended on behalf of the Department that the notice of the assessment orders and the copies thereof having been served on the assessee on 26th March, 1966, the appeals filed on 13th May, 1966 were time barred and the Appellate Authority was in error in holding them as not barred by time. The case of the assessee was that the requisite notice and the copies of the assessment orders were served on him on 15th April, 1966, hance the appeals filed on 13th May, 1966 were not barred by limitation the revising authority relying heavily on the observations made by the STO, while dismissing the applications under S. 30 of the Act and observing that the assessee for his own advantage had done away with the original record, held that the requisite service of notice and supply of the copies was affected on 26th March, 1966. In the result, he held the appeals time barred, allowed the revisions and set aside the appellate order in respect of all the three years.
(3.) THE assessee then moved the Revising Authority in all the three revisions to send up a reference to the High Court under S. 11 of the Act on the question of limitation. This the Revising Authority refused. The assessee then moved this Court and a reference was called from the Revising Authority in respect of all the three years on the following question :-- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Judge (Revisions) was right in holding that the appeal filed by the assessee was barred by time ?" In pursuance of the order of this Court, the learned Judge (Revisions), has submitted the statements of the case in all the three references. Since all the three references involved consideration of the same question, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.;