G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) WHETHER delay in the filing of appeal under Section 39(1) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, "the 1973 Act") against the order of assessment can be condoned by applying the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, is the only question which arises for determination by the court in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) A perusal of the record shows that the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 39(1) of the 1973 Act against the order dated March 27, 1998 passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer -cum -Assessing Authority, Rewari (respondent No. 2) holding the petitioner liable to pay tax amounting to Rs. 85,571 was entertained by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad Circle, Faridabad (respondent No. 3) on November 5, 1998 subject to the condition of furnishing surety bond but, later on, by an order dated November 30, 1998, the said respondent dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The review petition filed by the petitioner under Section 41 was also dismissed by respondent No. 3 on October 5, 1999 and appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Sales Tax Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal"). Shri Avneesh Jhingan referred to the decision of the Full Bench in Bharat Rubber and Allied Industries v. State of Punjab and the order dated May 10, 2000 passed by the division Bench in C.W.P. No. 16973 of 1998 -Shivam Riceland v. State of Haryana and argued that the order passed by respondent No. 3 dismissing the appeal as time -barred should be declared illegal and quashed with a direction that the same be decided on merits. The learned Deputy Advocate -General argued that there is no provision in the 1973 Act for condonation of delay in the filing of appeal under Section 39 and in the absence of statutory empowerment, the appellate authority cannot condone the delay in the filing of appeal. In support of his argument, Shri Jaswant Singh relied on the decision of the division Bench in Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana .
(3.) WE have thoughtfully considered the respective submissions. In Bharat Rubber and Allied Industries v. State of Punjab the following questions of law were referred to the Full Bench for its opinion : "(1) Whether the benefit of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act can be allowed to an applicant in reference application filed under Section 22 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, for the days spent in obtaining the certified copy of the order of the Tribunal against which reference is sought ? (2) If the benefit of Section 12(2) cannot be allowed, whether the delay in filing the reference application can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by extending the period of limitation by the number of days spent in obtaining the certified copy of the order of the Tribunal against which reference is sought -;