{"id":93298,"date":"1976-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976"},"modified":"2019-04-08T20:31:18","modified_gmt":"2019-04-08T15:01:18","slug":"commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Madan Lal Dan & Sons, Bareilly on 22 September, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Madan Lal Dan & Sons, Bareilly on 22 September, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 523, \t\t 1977 SCR (1) 683<\/div>\n
Author: H R Khanna<\/div>\n
Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMADAN LAL DAN & SONS, BAREILLY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT22\/09\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nUNTWALIA, N.L.\nSINGH, JASWANT\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR  523\t\t  1977 SCR  (1) 683\n 1976 SCC  (4) 464\n\n\nACT:\n\t    Limitation\tAct, 1963, S. 12(2), whether  applicable  to\n\trevision  petitions filed under-section 10, U.P.  Sales\t Tax\n\tAct--Time  spent  in  obtaining\t second\t copy,\tof  impugned\n\torder, whether to be excluded in computing limitation period\n\tfor filing revision petitions.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\t    The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) Sales Tax, Bareil-\n\tly,  disposed  of the respondents' appeal  made\t against  an\n\torder  of  the Sales Tax Officer.  A copy of the  order\t was\n\tserved\ton  the respondent, but he lost it.  Later,  he\t ob-\n\ttained\tanother\t copy and filed a revision  petition  under-\n\tsectiOn 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.  The same was  opposed\n\tas being time-barred, but the Judge (Revision) accepted\t the\n\trespondent's  contention that under-section  12(2)  of\t the\n\tLimitation  Act, he was entitled to exclude the\t time  spent\n\tin  obtaining  the second copy of the order, while computing\n\tthe limitation period.\tThe question whether such  exclusion\n\twas  permissible, was referred to the High Court  which\t an-\n\tswered in the affirmative.\n\t    The\t appellant  contended that the U.P.  Sales  Tax\t Act\n\titself\tprovided  for a specific period of  limitation;\t and\n\ttherefore  the Limitation Act was not applicable,  and\talso\n\tthat, a copy of the order was not required to be filed\twith\n\tthe revision petition, and so the time spent in obtaining  a\n\tsecond copy could not be excluded in computation of  limita-\n\ttion.\n\tDismissing the appeal the Court,\n\t    HELD:  (1 ) Where the copy served upon a party  is\tlost\n\tand  there is  no alternative for that party except to apply\n\tfor a fresh copy in order to be in a position to file  revi-\n\tsion  petition, the time spent in obtaining that copy  would\n\tnecessarily  have to be excluded under Section 12(2) of\t the\n\tLimitation  Act,  1963.\t State of Uttar Pradesh\t v.  Maharaj\n\tNarain & Ors.<\/a> [1968] 2\tSCR.  842 followed. [688 B--C]\n\t    (2)\t The provisions of Section 12(2) of  the  Limitation\n\tAct would apply even though the copy mentioned in that\tSub-\n\tsection is not required to be filed alongwith the Memorandum\n\tof  appeal.   The same position should hold good in case  of\n\trevision  petitions ever since Limitation Act of  1963\tcame\n\tinto force. 1686 B, D--687 FI\n\t    J.N.  Surty\t v.T.S.\t Chettyar (55 IA  161),\t The  Punjab\n\tCo.operative Bank Ltd., Lahore v. The Official\tLiquidators,\n\tthe Punjab Cotton Press Co. Ltd. (1941) ILR 22 Lahore Series\n\t191,  MT.  Lalitkuari v. Mahaprasad N. Singh (1947)  ILR  26\n\tPanta Series 157, Additional Collector of Customs,  Calcutta\n\t&  Anr.\t v. M\/s. Best & Co. (AIR<\/a> 1966 SC 1713) S.A.  Gaffoor\n\tv.  Ayesha Beghum & Ors. (C.A. 2406\/1969 decided  on   18-8-\n\t1970  Unreported Judgment  of  Supreme Court, 1970  Vol.  2,\n\tpage 784) followed.\n\t(3) For the purpose of determining any period of  limitation\n\tprescribed for any application by any special or local\tlaw,\n\tthe provisions contained in Section 12(2), inter alia. shall\n\tapply in so far as, and to the extent to which they are\t not\n\texpressly  excluded by such special or local law, and  there\n\tis nothing in the U.P. Sales Tax Act expressly excluding the\n\tapplication of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act. [685  H,\n\t686 A]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\tCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1726 of 1971.
\n\t   (Appeal  by\tSpecial Leave from the\tJudgment  and  Order
\n\tdated  20-4-1971 of the Allahabad High Court in Misc.  Sales
\n\tTax Reference No. 137 of 1970).12–1234SCI\/76
\n\t684<\/span>
\n\t    S.C.  Manchanda,  M.V. Goswami and O.P.  Rana,  for\t the
\n\tAppellants.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n\t    KHANNA,  J. This is an appeal by special  leave  against
\n\tthe judgment of Allahabad High Court whereby the High  Court
\n\tanswered the following question referred to it under section
\n\t11 ( 3 ) of the UP Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as
\n\tthe Act) in favour of the dealer-respondent and against\t the
\n\trevenue:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “Whether\t the  time taken by  the  dealer  in
\n\t\t obtaining  another copy of the\t impugned  appellate
\n\t\t order could be excluded for the purpose of  limita-
\n\t\t tion  for filing revision under section 10 (1 )  of
\n\t\t the UP Sales Tax Act when one copy of the appellate
\n\t\t order\twas served upon the dealer under the  provi-
\n\t\t sions of the Act ?”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe  matter  relates  to the assessment\t year  1960-61.\t  An
\n\tappeal\tfiled  by the respondent against the  order  of\t the
\n\tSales  Tax Officer was disposed of by the Assistant  Commis-
\n\tsioner\t(Judicial)  Sales  Tax, Bareilly. The  copy  of\t the
\n\tappellate  order  was  served on the  dealer  respondent  on
\n\tAugust 2, 1965. The respondent, it appears, lost the copy of
\n\tthe appellate order which had been served upon him. On\tJune
\n\t15,  1966 the respondent made an application  for  obtaining
\n\tanother\t copy  of the above order.  The copy  was  ready  on
\n\tAugust\t17, 1967 and was delivered to the respondent on\t the
\n\tfollowing day, i.e. August 18, 1967.  Revision under section
\n\t10 of the Act was thereafter filed by the respondent  before
\n\tthe  Judge (Revision) Sales Tax on September 9,\t 1967.\tSub-
\n\tsection (3B) of section 10 of the Act prescribes the  period
\n\tof limitation for filing such a revision. According to\tthat
\n\tsub-section,  such  a revision application  “shall  be\tmade
\n\twithin\tone year from the date of service of the order\tcom-
\n\tplained of but the Revising authority may on proof of suffi-
\n\tcient cause entertain an application within a further period
\n\tof six months.” Question was then agitated before the  Judge
\n\t(Revision) as to whether the revision application was within
\n\ttime.\tThe respondent claimed that under section  12(2)  of
\n\tthe Limitation Act, he was entitled to excluded in computing
\n\tthe  period of limitation for filing the revision, the\ttime
\n\tspent  for  obtaining a copy of the appellate  order.\tThis
\n\tcontention  was accepted by the Judge (Revision).   He\talso
\n\tobserved  that the fact that the said copy was not  required
\n\tto be filed along with the revision petition would not stand
\n\tin  the way of the respondent relying upon section 12(2)  of
\n\tthe  Limitation Act.  The Judge (Revision) thereafter  dealt
\n\twith the merits of the case and partly allowed the  revision
\n\tpetition. At the instance of the Commissioner of Sales\tTax,
\n\tthe  question  reproduced  above was referred  to  the\tHigh
\n\tCourt.\tThe High Court, as stated above, answered the  ques-
\n\ttion  in  favour of the respondent and in  doing  so  placed
\n\treliance upon the provision of section 12(2) of the  Limita-
\n\ttion Act,1963 (Act 36 of 1963) which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “(2)  In computing the period  of  limitation
\n\t\t for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal
\n\t\t or  for revision or for review of a  judgment,\t the
\n\t\t day on which the judgment complained
\n\t\t 685<\/span>
\n\t\t of  was pronounced and the time requisite  for\t ob-
\n\t\t taining  a  copy of the decree, sentence  or  order
\n\t\t appealed  from or sought to be revised or  reviewed
\n\t\t shall be excluded.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t It may be stated that the language of section 12(2)
\n\t\t of  the  Act of 1963 is in variance  with  that  of
\n\t\t section  12(2)\t of the Indian\tLimitation  Act,1908
\n\t\t (Act  9  of 1908) so far as  the  applicability  of
\n\t\t section 12(2) is concerned in computing the  period
\n\t\t of  limitation\t for  filing  revision\tapplication.
\n\t\t Section  12(2) of the Indian Limitation  Act,\t1908
\n\t\t read as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“(2)  In computing the period of  limitation
\n\t\t prescribed for an appeal, an application for  leave
\n\t\t to appeal and an application for a review of  judg-
\n\t\t ment,\tthe day on which the judgment complained  of
\n\t\t was pronounced, and the time requisite for  obtain-
\n\t\t ing  a\t copy of the decree, sentence or  order\t ap-
\n\t\t pealed\t from  or sought to be\treviewed,  shall  be
\n\t\t excluded.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t Bare  perusal of sub-section (2) of section  12  of
\n\t\t the  Act  of 1908 would show that it did  not\tdeal
\n\t\t with  the  period of limitation prescribed  for  an
\n\t\t application  for  revision. As\t against  that,\t the
\n\t\t language  of sub-section (2) of section 12 of\t.the
\n\t\t Act  of 1963 makes it manifest that its  provisions
\n\t\t would also apply in computing the period of limita-
\n\t\t tion  for  application\t for  revision.\t There\tcan,
\n\t\t therefore,  be\t no manner of doubt that in  a\tcase
\n\t\t like  the present which is governed by the  Act  of
\n\t\t 1963, the provisions of sub-section (2) of  section
\n\t\t 12  can  be  invoked for computing  the  period  of
\n\t\t limitation for the application for revision if\t the
\n\t\t other necessary conditions are fulfilled.
\n\t\t     It is, however, contended by Mr. Manchanda that
\n\t\t the UP Sales Tax Act constitutes a complete code in
\n\t\t itself\t and  as that Act prescribes the  period  of
\n\t\t limitation  for  filing of revision  petition,\t the
\n\t\t High Court was in error in relying upon the  provi-
\n\t\t sions\tof  sub-section (2) of section 12  of\t the
\n\t\t Limitation Act, 1963.\t This contention, in\t our
\n\t\t opinion, is wholly bereft of force.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     Sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Limitation
\n\t\t Act, 1963 reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“(2)  Where  any special or local  law\tpre-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t scribes  for  any  suit, appeal  or  application  a
\n\t\t period\t of  limitation different  from\t the  period
\n\t\t prescribed  by\t the Schedule,\t the  provisions  of
\n\t\t section  3 shall apply as if such period  were\t the
\n\t\t period\t prescribed  by\t the Schedule  and  for\t the
\n\t\t purpose  of  determining any period  of  limitation
\n\t\t prescribed  for any suit; appeal or application  by
\n\t\t any special or local law, the provisions  contained
\n\t\t in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in
\n\t\t so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not
\n\t\t expressly excluded by such special or local law.”
\n\tThere  can be no manner of doubt that the UP Sales  Tax\t Act
\n\tanswers\t to  the  description of a  special  or\t local\tlaw.
\n\tAccording to sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Limitation
\n\tAct,  reproduced above, for the purpose of  determining\t any
\n\tperiod\tof limitation prescribed for any application by\t any
\n\tspecial or local law, the provisions contained in section
\n\t686<\/span>
\n\t12(2),\tinter  alia,  shall apply in so far as\tand  to\t the
\n\textent\tto  which they are not expressly  excluded  by\tsuch
\n\tspecial or local law.  There is nothing in the U.P Sales Tax
\n\tAct expressly excluding the application of section 12(2)  of
\n\tthe Limitation Act for determining the period of  limitation
\n\tprescribed for revision application.  The conclusion  would,
\n\ttherefore,  follow that the provisions of section  12(2)  of
\n\tthe  Limitation Act of 1963 can be relied upon in  computing
\n\tthe  period of limitation prescribed for filing\t a  revision
\n\tpetition under section 10 of the UP Sales Tax Act.
\n\t    It\thas  been argued by Mr. Manchanda that\tit  was\t not
\n\tessential  for the dealer-respondent to file a copy  of\t the
\n\torder of the Assistant Commissioner along with the  revision
\n\tpetition.   As such, .according to the learned counsel,\t the
\n\tdealer-respondent  could not exclude the time spent  in\t ob-
\n\ttaining\t the  copy.  This contention is\t equally  devoid  of
\n\tforce. There is nothing in the language of section 12(2)  of
\n\tthe  Limitation Act  to justify the inference that the\ttime
\n\tspent  for obtaining copy of the order sought to be  revised
\n\tcan be excluded only if such a copy is required to be  filed
\n\talong with the revision application.  All that section 12(2)
\n\tstates in this connection is that in computing the period of
\n\tlimitation for a revision, the time requisite for  obtaining
\n\ta  copy of the order sought to be revised shah be  excluded.
\n\tIt would be impermissible to read in section 12(2) a proviso
\n\tthat  the time requisite for obtaining copy of\tthe  decree,
\n\tsentence  or order appealed from or sought to be revised  or
\n\treviewed shall be excluded only if such copy has to be filed
\n\talongwith the memorandum of appeal or application for  leave
\n\tto  appeal or for revision or for review of  judgment,\twhen
\n\tthe legislature has not\t inserted such a proviso in  section
\n\t12(2).\tIt is also plain that without procuring copy of\t the
\n\torder  of the Assistant Commissioner the respondent and\t his
\n\tlegal adviser would not have been in a position to decide as
\n\tto  whether revision petition should be filed  against\tthat
\n\torder  and if so, what grounds should be taken in the  revi-
\n\tsion petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t matter indeed is not res integra.   In the case  of
\n\tJ.N.Surty  v.  T.S.  Chettyar(1),  the\tJudicial   Committee
\n\tafter  .noticing the conflict in the decisions of  the\tHigh
\n\tCourts held that section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act,
\n\t1908  applies even when by a rule of the High Court a  memo-
\n\trandum\tof appeal need not be accompanied by a copy  of\t the
\n\tdecree,\t Lord Phillimore speaking on behalf of the  Judicial
\n\tCommittee observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       “Their  Lordships have now to return  to\t the
\n\t\t grammatical construction of the Act, and they\tfind
\n\t\t plain\twords directing that the time requisite\t for
\n\t\t obtaining the two documents is to be excluded\tfrom
\n\t\t computation.\tSect. 12 makes no reference  to\t the
\n\t\t Code  of  Civil Procedure or to any other  Act.  It
\n\t\t does  not say when the time is to be excluded,\t but
\n\t\t simply enacts it as a positive direction.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t       If,  indeed, it could be shown that  in\tsome
\n\t\t particular class of cases there could be no  object
\n\t\t in  obtaining the two documents, an argument  might
\n\t\t be offered that no time could
\n\t\t (1) 55 I.A. 161.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t 687<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t be requisite for obtaining something not requisite.
\n\t\t But this, is not so.  The decree may be  complicat-
\n\t\t ed, and it may be open to draw it up in two differ-
\n\t\t ent ways, and the practitioner may well want to see
\n\t\t its  form before attacking it by his memorandum  of
\n\t\t appeal.  As to the judgment, no doubt when the case
\n\t\t does  not  come from up country,  the\tpractitioner
\n\t\t will have heard it delivered, but he may not  carry
\n\t\t all  the points of a long judgment in\this  memory,
\n\t\t and as Sir John Edge says, the Legislature may\t not
\n\t\t wish  him to hurry to make a decision till  he\t has
\n\t\t well considered it.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      Following\t the above decision, it was held by  a\tFull
\n\tBench consisting of five Judges of the Lahore High Court  in
\n\tthe case of The Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lahore v. The
\n\tOfficial  Liquidators, The Punjab Cotton Press Co.  Ltd.  C)
\n\tthat  even  though under the Rules and Orders  of  the\tHigh
\n\tCourt no copy of the judgment is required to be filed  along
\n\twith the memorandum of appeal preferred under section 202 of
\n\tthe  Indian Companies Act from an order of a  single  Judge,
\n\tthe  provisions of section 12 of the Indian  Limitation\t Act
\n\twould be attracted.  The provisions of section 12 were\talso
\n\theld to govern an appeal under Letters Patent.\n<\/p>\n
\t      A\t Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the  case  of
\n\tMt. Lalitkuari v. Mahaprasad N. Singh(2) also held that\t the
\n\tprovisions of section 12 of the Limitation Act were applica-
\n\tble to Letters Patent appeals under clause 10 of the Letters
\n\tPatent.\n<\/p>\n
\t      The  above  decision  of the  Judicial  Committee\t was
\n\tfollowed  by this Court in the case of Additional  Collector
\n\tof Customs, Calcutta & Anr. v. M\/s. Best & Co.<\/a>(3)
\n\t      Similar  view was expressed by this Court in the\tcase
\n\tof S. A. Gaffoor v. Ayesha Beghum & Ors.(4)
\n\t      It is plain that since 1928 when the Judicial  Commit-
\n\ttee  decided the case of Surty (supra), the view  which\t has
\n\tbeen consistently taken by the Courts in India is that\tthe:
\n\tprovisions  of\tsection 12(2) of the  Limitation  Act  would
\n\tapply  even though the copy mentioned in that subsection  is
\n\tnot  required to be filed along with the memorandum  of\t ap-
\n\tpeal. The same position should hold good in case of revision
\n\tpetitions ever since Limitation Act of’1963 came into force.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Lastly, it has been argued that the copy of the  order
\n\tof  the Assistant Commissioner was served upon the  respond-
\n\tent,  and as such,; was not necessary for the respondent  to
\n\tapply  for copy of the said order.  In this respect we\tfind
\n\tthat the copy which was served upon the respondent was\tlost
\n\tby  him.   The loss of that copy necessitated the filing  of
\n\tan  application for obtaining another copy of the  order  of
\n\tthe Assistant Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t (1) (1941) ILR 22 Lahore Series 191.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t (2) (1947) I.L.R. 26 Patna Series 157. A.I.R. 1966
\n\t\t S.C. 1713.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t (4) CA No. 2406 of 1969 decided on August 18, 1970.
\n\t( See Unreported judgements of Supreme Court. 1970. Vol.  2.
\n\tpage 784).\n<\/p>\n
\t688<\/span><\/p>\n
\t    In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Maharaj  Narain
\n\t&  Ors.<\/a>(1) the appellant obtained three copies of the  order
\n\tappealed  against by applying on three different  dates\t for
\n\tthe copy.  The appellant filed along with the memorandum  of
\n\tappeal\tthat copy which had taken the maximum time  for\t its
\n\tpreparation  and  sought  to exclude such  maximum  time  in
\n\tcomputing  the period of limitation for filing\tthe  appeal,
\n\tThis  Court,  while holding the appeal to  be  within  time,
\n\tobserved that the expression time requisite in section 12(2)
\n\tof  the\t Limitation  Act cannot be understood  as  the\ttime
\n\tabsolutely necessary for obtaining the copy of the order and
\n\tthat  what  is\tdeductible under section 12(2)\tis  not\t the
\n\tminimum\t time  within which a copy of  the  order   appealed
\n\tagainst could have been obtained. If that be the position of
\n\tlaw  in a case where there was no allegation of the loss  of
\n\tany  copy, a fortiori it would follow that where as  in\t the
\n\tpresent ease the copy served upon a party is lost and  there
\n\tis no alternative for that party except to apply for a fresh
\n\tcopy in order to be in a position to file revision petition,
\n\tthe time spent in obtaining that copy would necessarily have
\n\tto  be excluded under section 12(2) of the  Limitation\tAct,
\n\t1963.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t High Court, in our opinion, correctly answered\t the
\n\tquestion  referred to it in favour of the  dealer-respondent
\n\tand against the revenue.  The appeal fails and is dismissed.
\n\tAs  no one appeared on behalf of the respondent, we make  no
\n\torder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\tM.R.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\n\tdismissed.\n\t(1) [1968] 2 S.C.R. 842.\n\t689<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Madan Lal Dan & Sons, Bareilly on 22 September, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 523, 1977 SCR (1) 683 Author: H R Khanna Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P. Vs. RESPONDENT: MADAN LAL DAN & SONS, BAREILLY DATE OF JUDGMENT22\/09\/1976 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-93298","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Madan Lal Dan & Sons, Bareilly on 22 September, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Madan Lal Dan & Sons, Bareilly on 22 September, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1976-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-08T15:01:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Madan Lal Dan & Sons, Bareilly on 22 September, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-08T15:01:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976\"},\"wordCount\":2371,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Madan Lal Dan & Sons, Bareilly on 22 September, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-08T15:01:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Madan Lal Dan & Sons, Bareilly on 22 September, 1976\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Madan Lal Dan & Sons, Bareilly on 22 September, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Madan Lal Dan & Sons, Bareilly on 22 September, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-08T15:01:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Madan Lal Dan & Sons, Bareilly on 22 September, 1976","datePublished":"1976-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-08T15:01:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976"},"wordCount":2371,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976","name":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Madan Lal Dan & Sons, Bareilly on 22 September, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-08T15:01:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-vs-madan-lal-dan-sons-bareilly-on-22-september-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P vs Madan Lal Dan & Sons, Bareilly on 22 September, 1976"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93298","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93298"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93298\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93298"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93298"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93298"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}