1967 (2) TMI 93 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal's decision rejecting the petitioners' application for reference to the High Court.
2. Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, to the petitioners' application for reference.
3. Tribunal's power to condone delay in filing the application for reference.
4. Whether the 1946 Act or the 1953 Act applied to the proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal's Decision:
The petitioners challenged the decision of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal dated 24th September, 1965, which rejected their application for reference to the High Court. The Tribunal held that the application was barred by limitation under the 1946 Act, which prescribed a 60-day period for filing such applications, and stated that it had no power to condone the delay.

2. Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The petitioners argued that under section 5 read with section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to condone the delay. Section 5 of the Limitation Act allows for the condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown, and section 29(2) applies the provisions of sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act to special or local laws unless expressly excluded. The Court noted that the 1963 Limitation Act had altered the provisions from the 1908 Act, making section 5 applicable without further enactment. The Tribunal failed to consider these provisions and wrongly concluded that it lacked the power to condone the delay.

3. Tribunal's Power to Condon Delay:
The Court found that the Tribunal was incorrect in its observation that it had no power to condone the delay. The Tribunal should have considered the merits of the application for condonation of delay, especially given that the petitioners were lay people and the delay was only 21 days. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's failure to exercise its jurisdiction and discretion in considering the application for condonation of delay was a significant error.

4. Applicability of the 1946 Act or the 1953 Act:
The question of whether the 1946 Act or the 1953 Act applied was primarily related to the period of limitation. The Tribunal had observed that if the 1953 Act applied, the petitioners' application was within the 90-day period. However, even if the 1946 Act applied, the application was liable to be considered on its merits, and the delay should have been condoned. Thus, the Court found it unnecessary to decide definitively which Act applied, as the application was to be considered on merits in either case.

Conclusion:
The Court set aside the Tribunal's decision dated 24th September, 1965, and restored the petitioners' application for reference to the Tribunal's file. The Tribunal was directed to dispose of the application in accordance with the law and the observations made by the Court. The rule was made absolute, and respondent No. 1 was ordered to pay costs to the petitioners.