- (1.) THIS revision petitioner has been filed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Udaipur, dated 9-8-1967, whereby he held the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the assessing authority dated 18-9-1965 to be time-barred on the following facts. The demand notice along with a copy of the order was received by the petitioner on 28-10-1965, but the appeal was filed on 13-1-1966, i. e. after the expiry of the statutory period of sixty days of limitation. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the time taken to obtain the certified copy for which he applied cm 22 12-1965 and which was received by him on 12-1-1966 should be taken into consideration in computing the period of limitation, but this plea was rejected by the learned Deputy Commissioner, on the ground that under the law the limitation would commence from the date of the receipt of the assessment order which was admittedly 28 10-1965.
(2.) BEFORE me also, the same plea has been reiterated and it is argued that the assessee was under the bonafide belief that the time taken for obtaining the certified copy would be allowed. It is further argued that in this case the provisions of Sec. 12 of the Indian Limitation Act are attracted. Sec, 12 (2) provides that 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. The learned Government Advocate has opposed this plea on the ground that under Sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, it is laid down that any person objecting to an assessment, reassessment, refund, an order of penalty, or to an order passed under Sec. 22a, or a dealer objecting to an order of rejection of an application for exemption or for registration certificate of for reopening of best judgment assessment under sec. 10 C, or an order amending or cancelling a certificate of registration under sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , may, within sixty days from the date on which he was served with a notice of demand or the copy of the order appealed against, as the case may be, appeal to the appellate authority. This is a plausible argument, but when note is taken of Rule 33 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955, which prescribes that the memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the order sought to be challenged, it becomes clear that a memorandum of appeal unaccompanied by such a certified copy shall not be entertained. In this connection, a reference may be made to the rule laid down in M/s Mithalal Hazarilal versus the State of Rajasthan (R L. W. 1962 page 25 (RS) ), wherein the question whether the copy endorsed to the assessee can be treated as a certified copy came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Board, The learned Members came to the conclusion that the aforesaid revision petition which had been preferred without a certified copy ( which was finally presented after a period of one year and 27 days from the date of the order) did not constitute a proper revision. It was observed by them that the term "certified" has not been defined in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act or the Rules, made thereunder and therefore shall be taken to mean what it generally means in relation to the appeals and revisions under other enactments. They went on to say that 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 Act. It was categorically laid down therein that in view of the provisions of Rules 33 and 40, such an application cannot obviously be treated to be a proper application unless accompanied by a "certified copy" as required therein. Under the circumstances they held that the application shall be treated to have been properly fied only when a "certified copy" of the order sought to be challenged had been filed by the applicant. This authority clinches the issue and I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the time taken by the petitioner in obtaining the certified copy must be taken into consideration in computing the period of limitation. If this is done in the present case, apparently the appeal cannot be held to be time barred. I, therefore, I hold accordingly, accept this revision petition, set aside the impugned order and remit the case to the appellate authority for hearing the appeal on merits. .;