Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment Order dated the 22nd January, 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in S.T.R. No.
Subsequently, the Sales tax Officer felt that by oversight a mistake had crept in the order of assessment made by him.
Consequently, in January 1960, he wrote a letter to P. A. to the Commissioner, Sales tax seeking guidance as to how he should proceed in the matter to rectify the omission.
Hence this appeal.
The reference, in the first instance, was heard by a Division Bench companysisting of Jagdish Sahai and Mt H. Beg, JJ.
The Commissioner treated that intimation received on 27 1 1960 as service on him.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judge Revisions accepted the companytention of the assessee and dismissed the revision as barred by limitation.
When this revision came up for arguments before the revisional authority, the assessee urged that the revision was time barred inasmuch as it had been filed more than 18 months after the date of the assessment order.
Hardayal Hardy, k. B. Rohtagi and Ram Lal for the intervener The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court answering against the Department, the following question referred to it under s. 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 Whether under the circumstances of the case, starting point of limitation for the Department to prefer a revision against the original assessment order would start from the date of assessment order or would start according to the discretion of the assessing officer or the Department from the time the assessing officer wishes to apprise the Department about the passing of the assessment as in this case.
On 26 7 1958, the Sales tax Officer passed an order assessing him for the year 1957 58.
Hardayal Hardy, K. B. Rohtagi M. K. Garg and E. C. Agarwala for the respondent.
Thereafter on 11 4 1960, the Commissioner filed a revision application under S. 10 of the Act before the Judge Revisions .
As against this, the Department maintained that the terminus a quo for limitation was 27 1 1960, on which date, the Personal Assistant to the Commissioner had received the intimation of the assessment order, and companysequently the revision having been filed within one year of that date, was fully within time.
C. Manchanda and O. P. Rana for the appellant.
1861 of 1971.
The assessees companytention was that the starting point for limitation was the date of the assessment order.
The respondent assessce is a dealer carrying on business at Beriyaganj, Sbahjahanpur.
361 of 1964.
At the instance of the Commissioner, the Judge Revisions referred the question under s. 11 of the Act to the High Court for opinion.
