OAK,C.J. - (1.) JUDGEMENT This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Messrs. Janta Cycle and Motor Mart, Kanpur, are the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Kanpur, is respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE petitioner is a dealer at Kanpur dealing in cycles and cycle parts. On 29-8-1966 the Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur, passed an assessment order for the year 1964-65. The petitioners not turnover was fixed at Rs. 2,60,000. A sum of Rs. 12,940 was assessed as sales tax payable by the dealer. The petitioner filed on 19-9-1966 an appeal against the assessment order, dated 29-8-1966. According to the memorandum of appeal, the amount of sales tax admitted by the appellant was Rs. 1,612.91. By this time the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,610.91 as sales tax. The amount so deposited fell short of the amount of admitted tax by Rs. 2. The appellant deposited an additional sura of Rs. 5 in January, 1967. When the appeal came up for hearing before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Kanpur, on 1-3-1967, it was urged for the Sales Tax Officer that the appeal ought to be rejected on the ground that proof of payment of the admitted tax did not accompany the memorandum of appeal. This contention was accepted by the appellate authority. There was an application by the appellant under Section 5, Indian Limitation Act for condoning delay. It was held that Section 5, Indian Limitation Act, could not be pressed into service for condoning non-fulfilment of the condition prescribed by the proviso to Section 9 of the Act. In the result, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal on 1-3-1967 on the ground that it was not maintainable. The present writ petition by the dealer is directed against the appellate order of respondent No. 1, dated 1-3-1967.
(3.) WHEN the writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, it was noticed that there was a conflict of opinion between Division Benches of this Court as regards the meaning to be given to the word entertained appearing in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Sec. 9 of the Act. The case, therefore, is referred to a Full Bench.;