Appeal No 1726 of 1971
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 20 4 1971 of the Allahabad High Court in Misc
Sales Tax Reference No 137 of 197012 1234SCI76 684 SC Manchanda MV Goswami and OP Rana for the Appellants
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA J
This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of Allahabad High Court whereby the High Court answered the following question referred to it under section 11  3  of the UP Sales Tax Act hereinafter referred to as the Act in favour of the dealer respondent and against the revenue Whether the time taken by the dealer in obtaining another copy of the impugned appellate order could be excluded for the purpose of limita tion for filing revision under section 10 1  of the UP Sales Tax Act when one copy of the appellate order was served upon the dealer under the provi sions of the Act  The matter relates to the assessment year 1960 61
An appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the Sales Tax Officer was disposed of by the Assistant Commis sioner Judicial Sales Tax Bareilly
The copy of the appellate order was served on the dealer respondent on August 2 1965
The respondent it appears lost the copy of the appellate order which had been served upon him
On June 15 1966 the respondent made an application for obtaining another copy of the above order
The copy was ready on August 17 1967 and was delivered to the respondent on the following day ie August 18 1967
Revision under section 10 of the Act was thereafter filed by the respondent before the Judge Revision Sales Tax on September 9 1967
Sub section 3B of section 10 of the Act prescribes the period of limitation for filing such a revision
According to that sub section such a revision application shall be made within one year from the date of service of the order com plained of but the Revising authority may on proof of suffi cient cause entertain an application within a further period of six months
 Question was then agitated before the Judge Revision as to whether the revision application was within time
The respondent claimed that under section 122 of the  he was entitled to excluded in computing the period of limitation for filing the revision the time spent for obtaining a copy of the appellate order
This contention was accepted by the Judge Revision
He also observed that the fact that the said copy was not required to be filed along with the revision petition would not stand in the way of the respondent relying upon section 122 of the 
The Judge Revision thereafter dealt with the merits of the case and partly allowed the revision petition
At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax the question reproduced above was referred to the High Court
The High Court as stated above answered the ques tion in favour of the respondent and in doing so placed reliance upon the provision of section 122 of the Limita tion Act1963 Act 36 of 1963 which reads as under 2 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 685 of was pronounced and the time requisite for ob taining a copy of the decree sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded
 It may be stated that the language of section 122 of the Act of 1963 is in variance with that of section 122 of the Indian Limitation Act1908 Act 9 of 1908 so far as the applicability of section 122 is concerned in computing the period of limitation for filing revision application
Section 122 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 read as under 2 In computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal an application for leave to appeal and an application for a review of judg ment the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtain ing a copy of the decree sentence or order ap pealed from or sought to be reviewed shall be excluded
 Bare perusal of sub section 2 of section 12 of the Act of 1908 would show that it did not deal with the period of limitation prescribed for an application for revision
As against that the language of sub section 2 of section 12 of the
Act of 1963 makes it manifest that its provisions would also apply in computing the period of limita tion for application for revision
There can therefore be no manner of doubt that in a case like the present which is governed by the Act of 1963 the provisions of sub section 2 of section 12 can be invoked for computing the period of limitation for the application for revision if the other necessary conditions are fulfilled
It is however contended by Mr Manchanda that the UP Sales Tax Act constitutes a complete code in itself and as that Act prescribes the period of limitation for filing of revision petition the High Court was in error in relying upon the provi sions of sub section 2 of section 12 of the 
This contention in our opinion is wholly bereft of force
Sub section 2 of section 29 of the reads as under 2 Where any special or local law pre scribes for any suit appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit appeal or application by any special or local law the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 inclusive shall apply only in so far as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law
 There can be no manner of doubt that the UP Sales Tax Act answers to the description of a special or local law
According to sub section 2 of section 29 of the  reproduced above for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any application by any special or local law the provisions contained in section 686 122 inter alia shall apply in so far as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law
There is nothing in the UP Sales Tax Act expressly excluding the application of section 122 of the for determining the period of limitation prescribed for revision application
The conclusion would therefore follow that the provisions of section 122 of the of 1963 can be relied upon in computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing a revision petition under section 10 of the UP Sales Tax Act
It has been argued by Mr Manchanda that it was not essential for the dealer respondent to file a copy of the order of the Assistant Commissioner along with the revision petition
As such according to the learned counsel the dealer respondent could not exclude the time spent in ob taining the copy
This contention is equally devoid of force
There is nothing in the language of section 122 of the to justify the inference that the time spent for obtaining copy of the order sought to be revised can be excluded only if such a copy is required to be filed along with the revision application
All that section 122 states in this connection is that in computing the period of limitation for a revision the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order sought to be revised shah be excluded
It would be impermissible to read in section 122 a proviso that the time requisite for obtaining copy of the decree sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded only if such copy has to be filed alongwith the memorandum of appeal or application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of judgment when the legislature has not inserted such a proviso in section 122
It is also plain that without procuring copy of the order of the Assistant Commissioner the respondent and his legal adviser would not have been in a position to decide as to whether revision petition should be filed against that order and if so what grounds should be taken in the revi sion petition
The matter indeed is not res integra
In the case of JNSurty vs TS Chettyar1 the Judicial Committee after noticing the conflict in the decisions of the High Courts held that section 122 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 applies even when by a rule of the High Court a memo randum of appeal need not be accompanied by a copy of the decree Lord Phillimore speaking on behalf of the Judicial Committee observed Their Lordships have now to return to the grammatical construction of the Act and they find plain words directing that the time requisite for obtaining the two documents is to be excluded from computation
12 makes no reference to the Code of Civil Procedure or to any other Act
It does not say when the time is to be excluded but simply enacts it as a positive direction
If indeed it could be shown that in some particular class of cases there could be no object in obtaining the two documents an argument might be offered that no time could 1 55 IA 161
687 be requisite for obtaining something not requisite
But this is not so
The decree may be complicat ed and it may be open to draw it up in two differ ent ways and the practitioner may well want to see its form before attacking it by his memorandum of appeal
As to the judgment no doubt when the case does not come from up country the practitioner will have heard it delivered but he may not carry all the points of a long judgment in his memory and as Sir John Edge says the Legislature may not wish him to hurry to make a decision till he has well considered it
 Following the above decision it was held by a Full Bench consisting of five Judges of the Lahore High Court in the case of The Punjab Co operative Bank Ltd Lahore vs The Official Liquidators The Punjab Cotton Press Co Ltd C that even though under the Rules and Orders of the High Court no copy of the judgment is required to be filed along with the memorandum of appeal preferred under section 202 of the Indian Companies Act from an order of a single Judge the provisions of section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act would be attracted
The provisions of section 12 were also held to govern an appeal under Letters Patent
A Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Mt Lalitkuari vs Mahaprasad N Singh2 also held that the provisions of section 12 of the Limitation Act were applica ble to Letters Patent appeals under clause 10 of the Letters Patent
The above decision of the Judicial Committee was followed by this Court in the case of Additional Collector of Customs Calcutta  Anr
vs Ms Best  Co3 Similar view was expressed by this Court in the case of section A Gaffoor vs Ayesha Beghum  Ors4 It is plain that since 1928 when the Judicial Commit tee decided the case of Surty supra the view which has been consistently taken by the Courts in India is that the provisions of section 122 of the Limitation Act would apply even though the copy mentioned in that subsection is not required to be filed along with the memorandum of ap peal
The same position should hold good in case of revision petitions ever since Limitation Act of 1963 came into force
Lastly it has been argued that the copy of the order of the Assistant Commissioner was served upon the respond ent and as such was not necessary for the respondent to apply for copy of the said order
In this respect we find that the copy which was served upon the respondent was lost by him
The loss of that copy necessitated the filing of an application for obtaining another copy of the order of the Assistant Commissioner
1 Lahore Series 191
2 Patna Series 157
 4 CA No 2406 of 1969 decided on August 18 1970
 See Unreported judgements of Supreme Court
2 page 784
688 In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs Maharaj Narain  Ors1 the appellant obtained three copies of the order appealed against by applying on three different dates for the copy
The appellant filed along with the memorandum of appeal that copy which had taken the maximum time for its preparation and sought to exclude such maximum time in computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal This Court while holding the appeal to be within time observed that the expression time requisite in section 122 of the Limitation Act cannot be understood as the time absolutely necessary for obtaining the copy of the order and that what is deductible under section 122 is not the minimum time within which a copy of the order appealed against could have been obtained
If that be the position of law in a case where there was no allegation of the loss of any copy a fortiori it would follow that where as in the present ease the copy served upon a party is lost and there is no alternative for that party except to apply for a fresh copy in order to be in a position to file revision petition the time spent in obtaining that copy would necessarily have to be excluded under section 122 of the 
The High Court in our opinion correctly answered the question referred to it in favour of the dealer respondent and against the revenue
The appeal fails and is dismissed
As no one appeared on behalf of the respondent we make no order as to costs
MR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The Assistant Commissioner Judicial Sales Tax Bareil ly disposed of the respondents  appeal made against an order of the Sales Tax Officer
A copy of the order was served on the respondent but he lost it
Later he ob tained another copy and filed a revision petition under sectiOn 10 of the UP Sales Tax Act
The same was opposed as being time barred but the Judge Revision accepted the respondent s contention that under section 122 of the  he was entitled to exclude the time spent in obtaining the second copy of the order while computing the limitation period
The question whether such exclusion was permissible was referred to the High Court which an swered in the affirmative
The appellant contended that the UP Sales Tax Act itself provided for a specific period of limitation and therefore the was not applicable and also that a copy of the order was not required to be filed with the revision petition and so the time spent in obtaining a second copy could not be excluded in computation of limita tion
Dismissing the appeal the Court HELD 1  Where the copy served upon a party is lost and there is no alternative for that party except to apply for a fresh copy in order to be in a position to file revi sion petition the time spent in obtaining that copy would necessarily have to be excluded under Section 122 of the 
State of Uttar Pradesh vs Maharaj Narain  Ors  followed
688 B C 2 The provisions of Section 122 of the would apply even though the copy mentioned in that Sub section is not required to be filed alongwith the Memorandum of appeal
The same position should hold good in case of revision petitions ever since of 1963 came into force
1686 B D 687 FI JN Surty vs
TS Chettyar 55 IA 161 The Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd Lahore vs The Official Liquidators the Punjab Cotton Press Co Ltd Lahore Series 191 MT
Lalitkuari vs Mahaprasad N Singh Panta Series 157 Additional Collector of Customs Calcutta  Anr
vs Ms Best  Co AIR SA Gaffoor vs Ayesha Beghum  Ors
CA 24061969 decided on 18 8 1970 Unreported Judgment of Supreme Court 1970 Vol 2 page 784 followed
3 For the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any application by any special or local law the provisions contained in Section 122 inter alia
shall apply in so far as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law and there is nothing in the UP Sales Tax Act expressly excluding the application of Section 122 of the 
685 H 686 A