- (1.) IN this revision preferred against the judgment of the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Appeals) Kota Division, Kota, dated 15. 4. 60, by the assessee M/s. Mithhalal Hajarilal of Gangapur, a preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the learned Govt. Advocate for the Sales Tax Deptt. that the copy of the judgment filed along with the memorandum of revision is not a "certified true copy" as required by Rule 40 read with Rule 33 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955. Rule 40 says that the provisions of Rules 33 to 38 shall apply in respect of application for revision, procedure for revision and other matters connected therewith in the same manner as they apply to appeals with such modifications as may be necessary. Rule 33lays down that the memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by "a certified copy" of the order sought to be challenged. " This means an application for revision should also be accompanied by a"certified copy of the order sought to be challenged". The term "certified" has not been defined in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act or these Rules, and therefore it shall be taken to mean what it generally means in relation to the appeals and revisions under other enactments. It has been generally held in all such cases that the copy required to accompany the memorandum of appeal or the application for revision should be a copy certified to be a true one. Unless, therefore, the copy accompanying the application for revision is not a copy so certified to be true, it cannot be taken to be a "certified copy" for the purposes of the requirements of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 and the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 providing the revision.
(2.) THE copy submitted in the present case along with the application for revision preferred by the applicant to the Addl. Commissioner Sales Tax Rajasthan, Jaipur on 2. 6. 60 and which has been since transferred as a result of a change in law to the Board is not, a copy certified to be a true one. On the other hand it is only a copy endorsed to the applicant by the Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax (Appeals) Kota, vide his No. ST/1728, dated 10. 5. 60. This copy was not taken by the learned Addl. Commissioner also to be a "certified true copy" for the purposes of revision and the applicant was asked to file a "certified copy of the order challenged". This case, on transfer to the Board, remained pending for a very long time in waiting for a ' decision by the Full Bench as to which Court would hear the revisions filed before the amendment of the Sales Tax Act empowering the Board to hear this revision. It was on 29. 6. 61, notwithstanding the orders of the learned Addl. Commissioner as back as 2. 6. 60 requiring the production of a "certified copy", that the applicant preferred an application to the Board that the copy produced by him already was a properly sealed and signed to be a true copy and that it had been filed according to the past practice and tradition resulting in bona fide belief that the application for revision had been properly filed and that the other type of "certified copy" if necessary could be filed at any stage including the stage of hearing ; and further he also submitted another copy certified to be a true one along with this application. He has also made a request to treat the revision within limitation on the grounds stated in his application. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the Govt. Advocate fully in this behalf. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the copy filed by him along with his application for revision is a "certified copy cannot in any manner be accepted to be correct. That copy nowhere bears the endorsement by any officer whatsoever that it was a "true copy". In the absence of such endorsement this copy cannot be taken to be a copy certified to be a true one and consequently it cannot be taken as a "certified copy". Now the question arises as to what shall be the fate of this revision in the absence of such a "certified copy" having been made to accompany the application of revision. The revision is to be preferred vide sec. 14 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act within six months of the date of order. Vide proviso thereto such application can be admitted even after the lapse of period of six months if the applicant satisfies that there had been a sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of six months. The question, therefore, arises whether the application without being accompanied by a "certified copy" can be treated to be a proper application. In view of the provisions of Rules 33 and 40 referred to above such an application cannot obviously be treated to be a proper application unless accompanied by a "certified copy" as required thereby. Under the circumstances the application will be treated to have been properly filed only when a "certified copy" of the revision application has been filed by the applicant. This was done on 29. 6. 61 as stated earlier. The order was dated 10. 4. 60. The revision thus comes to be filed after a lapse of one year and 79 days. The applicant is, therefore, required to show sufficient cause for making the application after such a long period. As stated above the only reason stated by the applicant is that given in Paras 5 and 6 of his application dated 29. 6. 61. In that application the contention raised by him is that "the sealed and signed copy received under the statutory provisions of Rajasthan Sales-tax Law was a proper copy to be annexed for all procedural purposes, under that law itself. The provisions of Evidence Act can hardly be invoked in such procedural affairs, particularly for purposes of Sales Tax itself. The long period of residuary limitation left after the filing of the revision application was sufficient enough to return the revision application to the applicant for remedy or requisite annexures. This was never done. The practice and tradition resulted in a bona fide belief that the application for revision was properly filed and that the other type of "certified copy" if necessary could be filed at any stage including the stage of hearing. Accordingly, in enclosing one other "certified copy" obtained on payment, I have to submit that the same may be kindly taken on record and the revision originally filed in time be taken to be valid and within limitation, in the light of the facts, circumstances, law and the past practice. " As for the argument given therein that the long period of residuary limitation left after the filing of the revision application was sufficient enough to return the revision application to the applicant for remedy or requisite annexures suffice it to observe that when the applicant was directed on 2. 6. 60 itself to file a "certified copy" of the order sought to be revised, the question does not at all arise. If he failed to comply with it, it was no business of the revising authority to return the revision to him for making up this deficiency. Besides there is no such provision as to warrant a return of the revision application under such circumstances. As for the argument that the applicant was led to believe bonafide because of the past practice that the copy filed by him was itself a "certified copy" and that he could produce a "certified copy" also if necessary at any stage of the case, there has been produced neither any authority nor anything to show that there had crept in a practice or a tradition to accept the copy of the type produced by him as a "certified copy" and to allow the applicant to produce another "certified copy" at any stage of the hearing of the revision. Rather the order of the learned Addl. Commissioner dated 2. 6. 60, to whom the revision had been originally preferred, goes to belie such a contention. A wrong practice cannot over-rule the clear provisions of law. At the utmost if it is found that a party has been misled by a wrong practice it can be treated to be a sufficient cause to give him time and condone the delay in filing the "certified copy" of the order sought to be revised. In this case unforunately, even such a contingency is not possible, when the applicant had been informed by the learned Addl. Commissioner Sales Tax as back as 2. 6. 60 itself to file the "certified copy" of the order sought to be revised. The applicant should have taken immediate steps thereafter to file the "certified copy" and should not have waited for a period of one year and 27 days to comply with that order. No reason sufficient to be satisfied that this delay had been made due to a sufficient cause has been put forward to enable us condoning this delay. The learned counsel for the applicant has referred us to Rasipuram Union Motor Service Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Madras (1956)30 I. T. R. Page 687 and contended on that basis that the copy filed by him along with the application for revision should be treated as a "certified copy". In the first place this ruling nowhere has held that the copy of the type filed by the applicant was a "certified copy" nor was this question at all posed for determination in that case. Rather, therein the copy served upon the assessee was in itself a certified to be a true copy and it was not that copy which had been filed by the applicant along with the memorandum of appeal but he had applied for and obtained a fresh "certified copy" under the provisions of sec, 76 Indian Evidence Act and it was on account of the delay in obtaining this copy that an objection had been raised that the appeal had not been preferred in time and that the applicant could have preferred the appeal by filing the copy endorsed to him by the Income Tax Authority itself. The question for determination in that case was whether the benefit of sec. 67 (a) of the Income Tax Act, which provided inter alia that the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded, should be given to the applicant or not; and it was held that the applicant should be allowed the benefit of such period, and thereafter the learned Judges left the question whether the copy of the order endorsed to the assessee applicant by the Income-tax Authorities was a "certified copy" or not undecided. This case, therefore, does not go to help the applicant. Another case cited by the learned counsel for the applicant is Sheonath Singh Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax West Bengal (1958) 33 ITR p. 591. In that cast the question for decision was entirely different. It was whether the absence or defect in the signature of the applicant in the memorandum of appeal was an illegality and fatal to the appeal or was only an irregularity which could be rectified by an amendment, the same being allowed to take effect from the date of filing the memorandum itself. It was held that the memorandum originally filed was not a nullity and that if it was found that the applicant himself intended to file that memorandum and the same had been presented through the authorised representative, the mere absence of the signature of the applicant at the proper places in the memorandum of appeal was not a material defect warranting the rejection of the appeal only on that ground. This case also is so clearly distinguishable from the present one and cannot be taken to help the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant has referred us to a case No. 15 of 1958, Kalia Vs. Gopi, decided by the Board as well. He has not produced the copy thereof. But he has admitted that point for decision therein was whether a bonafide wrong advise given by the counsel was a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the filing of the appeal under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act or not. The circumstances of the present revision are entirely different from that case; and the question that arose for determination therein is not at all a point for determination here. Even if we presume for the sake of argument (of course without accepting it) that the applicant was given a wrong advice by his counsel-although there is nothing on record in the application dated 29. 6. 60 or anywhere to show this - it cannot be allowed in the particular fact of this case to be of any benefit to the applicant. When the learned Addl. Commissioner passed clear order as back as on 2. 6. 60 itself that the applicant should file a "certified copy", he had no business to let him be advised wrongly, even though it may be bonafide, by any counsel; and if he had allowed him to be so advised and has been guided by such advice, it was his own responsibility and he should thank himself alone for the results ensuing thereby. The learned counsel for the Government has referred us to the decisions of the Board in (i) Revision No. 66 (Bharatpur) 1960 - M/s. Bhajanlal Gordhandass Badi V/s. State of Rajasthan (ii) Revision No. 36 (Jaipur) 1961 - Sitaram V/s. State of Rajasthan (iii) Revision No. 56 (Alwar) 1960 - State of Rajasthan Vs. M/s. Rodmal Mussodilal Alwar (iv) Revision No. 92 (Distt. Sawai Madhopur) 1960 - M/s. Jhutalal Kailash Chandra Vs. The State of Rajasthan. In all these cases when the copies were found not to be 'certified copies' the revision applications have been ordered to be rejected. The revision No. 92 (Sawai Madhopur) 1960 - M/s. Jhutalal Kailash Chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan is on all the fours with the present case. One of us was a party to that judgment. It was held therein that the copy endorsed by the Sales Tax Authorities to the assessee could not be treated to be a "certified copy" and that the revision would be deemed to have been filed on the date a "certified copy" was filed and in the absence of the sufficient cause for the delay, the revision could not be treated to have been preferred in time and deserved to be rejected. To conclude the present revision has been preferred without a "certified copy", the "certified copy" even though specifically asked for was presented after a period of one year and 27 days from the date of that order, and that there were no sufficient reasons to warrant this delay. The revision petition is, therefore, hereby rejected. . ;