COMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX, U.P. vs. MANGAL SEN SHYAM LAL

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1861/1971Supreme Court1975 INSC 8602 April 1975Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: V.R. KRISHNA IYER, R.S. SARKARIA, A.C. GUPTA9 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, a dealer, was assessed in July 1958 for the assessment year 1957-58. The Sales Tax Officer, realizing a mistake in the assessment order, wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Sales Tax in January 1960. The Commissioner treated the receipt of this letter on January 27, 1960, as the starting point for limitation. Subsequently, on April 11, 1960, the Commissioner filed a revision application under Section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The assessee contended that the revision was time-barred as it was filed much beyond the period of limitation prescribed from the date of the assessment order. The Revisional Authority accepted the assessee's contention and dismissed the application. The High Court, on reference, answered the questions against the Revenue, leading to this appeal.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that Sub-section (3-B) of Section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, prescribes a period of limitation for every revision application, whether filed by the Commissioner or the assessee. The starting point of limitation is the date of the service of the order on the revision applicant. 'Service' implies formal communication of the order after it has been passed, and not merely the making of the order. The Court found that the revision application in this case was filed by the Commissioner within one year of the communication of the assessment order to him, and therefore, it was within time. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and answered the question in favour of the Revenue. The Court also noted the difficulty in interpreting the statute and suggested legislative amendment to clarify the intent and require Sales Tax Officers to send copies of assessment orders to the Commissioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether Sub-section (3-B) of Section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, provides a period of limitation for revision applications filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, and if so, what is the starting point of that limitation? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The revision application was time-barred as it was filed more than 18 months after the date of the assessment order. The starting point for limitation should be the date of the assessment order. Revenue's Contention: The starting point of limitation is January 27, 1960, the date the Commissioner received the intimation of the assessment order. Since the revision was filed within one year of this date, it was within time. The Revenue also argued that Sub-section (3-B) does not provide a specific starting point for revisions filed by the Commissioner, or alternatively, the starting point is the date of service of the order on the Commissioner or the dealer. 2. Whether the communication of the assessment order to the Commissioner constitutes 'service' for the purpose of Section 10(3-B) of the Act? (Question of mixed law and fact)

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(3),Section 10(3-B),Section 11

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

58 A B c D E F G H COMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX, U.P. v. MANGAL SEN SHY AM LAL April 2, 1975 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, R. S. SARKARIA AND A.C. GUPTA, JJ.] U.P. Sales Tox Act, 1948-Sectlon 10(3) and 10(3-B) period of limitation for filing revision by the Commissioner.

Interpretation of Statute-Whether scheme of the Act and rule can be taken into consideration in interpreting the Act-Whether provision of an Act can be construed on lhe analogy of another Act not pari materia.

The respondent, a dealer, was assessed in July, 1948. In January, 1960, the SaJes Tax Officer wrote a letter to the Sales Tax Commissioner pointing out a mistake which had crept in the order of assessment. In April 1960, the Commissioner filed a Revision Application under s. 10 of the Acl Section 10(3) ands. 10(3-B) read as under: "(3)(i) The Revising Authority (or an Additional Revising Authority) may, for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order made by any appellate or assessing authority under this Act, in its discretion, call for and examine, either on its O\VD motion or on the application of the Commissioner of Sales Tax or the persons aggrieved,

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 10(3)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →