2001 (10) TMI 1125 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing an appeal beyond the permissible period.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of condoning a delay in filing an appeal that extended beyond the permissible period. The counsel argued that despite the specific provision in the statute limiting the appeal period, the delay should be condoned. The Court emphasized that the law of limitation should be uniformly applied to all and not circumvented by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was highlighted that the court's discretion under Article 226 should be exercised cautiously, especially when seeking to override the statutory limitation without examining the merits of the matter.

The Court rejected the argument that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the illness of the person in charge of the company. It was emphasized that the limitation prescribed by law should not be lifted based on the short duration of the delay. The judgment referenced previous cases where delay was condoned based on special facts and circumstances, but stressed that condoning delay should not lead to rewriting or ignoring statutory provisions. The Court also cited a judgment from the Allahabad High Court, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities but within the confines of the statutory limitation.

Additionally, the judgment referred to a Supreme Court decision highlighting that the Legislature can exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act in special laws. It was noted that Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used as a tool to overcome the limitation period. Ultimately, the Court found no error of law or jurisdiction in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision not to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory limitations, the uniform application of the law of limitation, and the cautious exercise of judicial discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. It emphasizes that while substantial justice is crucial, it should not lead to the disregard or rewriting of statutory provisions related to appeal timelines.