Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)
Balharshah Timber Depot vs Commissioner Of Commercial Tax And Anr. on 17 May, 1957 cites

Promode Lal Moitra vs Additional District Magistrate, 24 ... on 12 September, 1956

4. Mr. Majumdar has argued that as the petitioner did not appeal under Section 20 of the Sales Tax Act and moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution after the remedy by way of appeal became barred by lapse of time, the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be granted to the petitioner. Reliance is placed on a decision of Sinha J. reported in Promode Lal Maitra v. Additional District Magistrate, 24-Parganas, . It may be noted however that although the petitioner did not file any appeal, an application was made by the petitioner for review of the order as provided by Section 20 (4) of the Act. This was a remedy which was open to the petitioner to take. The Assistant Commissioner however did not entertain this application for review but asked the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order to the Commissioner. This petition for review was filed on the 24th April, 1954 and was thus beyond the period of limitation of 30 days which is prescribed as the period of limitation for such application for review under Rule 80 of the Sales Tax Rules. There is of course a proviso to Rule 80 under which it is open to the applicant for review, to satisfy the officer concerned that the applicant had sufficient cause for not presenting the application within the prescribed period. It appears however that the Assistant Commissioner did not throw out the application on the ground that the application was barred by limitation. He did not apply his mind to this aspect of the matter at all but declined to entertain the application and advised the petitioner to appeal to the Commissioner against his order. I do not therefore think that the conduct of the petitioner in the present case has been such as to disentitle the petitioner to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1