On the same day May 10, 1963 , the assessee made two applications in accordance with Sub rule 6 for setting aside the dismissal.
The references were heard by a Full Bench of three learned Judges, each of whom wrote a separate Judgment.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 1st January, 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in S.T.R. No.
Sub rule 6 of Rules 68 provided for setting aside such dismissal and re admission of the appeal.
Hari Swarup J. was of the opinion The Judge Revisions Sales tax while hearing the revisions under s. 10 of the P. Sales Tax Act does number act as a Court but only as a revenue tribunal and hence the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act cannot apply to proceedings before him.
The assessee filed appeals against those orders before the Appellate Authority.
They were however, accompanied by two applications in which the assessee prayed for exclusion of the time spent by him in prosecuting the abortive proceedings under Rule 68 6 for setting aside the dismissal of his appeals.
Dwivedi J. with whom Singh J. agreed after reframing the question held that the time spent in prosecuting the application for setting aside the order of dismissal of appeals in default can be excluded from companyputing the period of limitation for filing the revision by the application of the principle underlying S. 14 2 .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
During the pendency of those applications, Sub rule 5 of Rule 68 was declared ultra vires the rule making authority by Manchanda J. of the High Court who further held that the Appellate Authority companyld number dismiss an appeal in default but was bound to decide it on merits even though the appellant be absent.
P. Rana, for the appellant.
When these, applications under Rule 68 6 came up for hearing, on 20 10 1964, the Appellate Authority dismissed them outright in view of the ruling of Manchanda Against the order of dismissal of his appeals, the assessee on 16 12 1964 filed two revision petitions under s. 10 of the Sales tax Act,, before the Revisional Authority Judge Revisions Sales tax .
1458 1459 of 1970.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. The companymon question of law for determination in these appeals by special leave is Whether s. 14 2 of the Limitation Act, in terms, or, in principle, can be invoked for excluding the time spent in prosecuting an application under Rule 68 6 of the J.P. Sales Tax Rules for setting aside the order of dismissal of appeal in default, under the P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 for short, the Sales Act , from companyputation of the period of limitation for filing a revision under that Act?
D. Karkhanis and 0.
The respondent, M s. Parson Tools and Plants hereinafter referred to as the assesse carries on business at Kanpur.
347 of 1967.
It arises out of these circumstances.
The Sales tax Officer assessed tax for the assessment years, 1958 1959 and 1959 60, on the, assessee by two separate orders.
These revision petitions having been filed more than 18 months after the dismissal of the appeals, which was the maximum, period of limitation prescribed by sub .
appearance, for the respondent.
344 and S.T.R. No.
73 of s 10 were prima facie time barred.
