Hyderabad Industries Limited Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
sales tax - extension of time - central sales tax act, 1956 - assessee requested to extend time up to march to file 'd' forms - 'd' forms could not be obtained from authorities - tribunal extended time till january - 'd' forms issued by authorities in february - time should have been granted by tribunal in such circumstances - tribunal erred in decision - held, assessing authority directed to receive 'd' forms from assessee. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - 4 of 1991, the petitioner failed to file the 'd' forms and, therefore, the tribunal saw no valid grounds to extend the time beyond january 31, 1991. 2. it is seen from the record that in the affidavit filed in support of the first petition for extension of time, the petitioner elaborately explained the circumstances under which the 'd' forms could not be obtained from the kerala state authorities. in these circumstances, we are inclined to take the view that the tribunal ought to have further extended the time in the interests of justice ;otherwise, the just claim of the petitioner will be defeated by unintentional omission to file the 'd' forms.p. venkatarama reddi, j.1. aggrieved by the order of the tribunal in not extending the time further for filing the 'd' forms, the present tax revision case is filed by the assessee. the tribunal noted that despite the fact that the time was extended as a last chance till january 31, 1991 by an order dated january 11, 1991 passed in t.m.p. no. 4 of 1991, the petitioner failed to file the 'd' forms and, therefore, the tribunal saw no valid grounds to extend the time beyond january 31, 1991.2. it is seen from the record that in the affidavit filed in support of the first petition for extension of time, the petitioner elaborately explained the circumstances under which the 'd' forms could not be obtained from the kerala state authorities. the petitioner requested time up to march 31, 1991 for producing the 'd' forms. but, the tribunal granted time up to january 31, 1991 only. it is further seen from the record that the 'd' forms were issued by the kerala water authority, trivandrum, on february 23, 1991. a few days thereafter, the application was filed for further extension of time. by the date of filing the second petition for extension, the two 'd' forms were obtained from kerala water authority and copies thereof were filed before the tribunal. in these circumstances, we are inclined to take the view that the tribunal ought to have further extended the time in the interests of justice ; otherwise, the just claim of the petitioner will be defeated by unintentional omission to file the 'd' forms. the fact that the petitioner has been pursuing with the concerned authorities of the kerala state to issue the 'd' forms by the date of filing the first petition for extension and that the petitioner followed it up by taking diligent steps after the extension of time was granted by the tribunal cannot be denied, as seen from the unrebutted facts in the affidavits filed by the petitioner and the issuance of 'd' forms on february 23, 1991. the previous delay need not be given much importance to defeat the claim of the petitioner because the tribunal itself thought it a fit case to give an opportunity to the petitioner to file the 'd' forms while disposing of the appeal. we have no manner of doubt, in the absence of the finding of the tribunal to the contrary, that the petitioner did take reasonable and diligent steps after the time was granted and later on extended. these circumstances, coupled with the fact that while extending the time on the second occasion, the tribunal granted only twenty days' time as against two months' time requested by the petitioner and that the petitioner was able to get the 'd' forms within three weeks thereafter, impel us to take the view that the tribunal should have adopted a more liberal approach and, therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the tribunal committed a legal error in not granting extension of time for production of 'd' forms filed along with the application for extension. we, therefore, set aside the order of the tribunal and direct the assessing authority to receive the two 'd' forms issued by the kerala water authority and to give the necessary relief if they are otherwise in order.the tax revision case is allowed to the extent indicated above. no costs.