9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (10) TMI 602 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether section 5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked for the condonation of delay in filing revision application under section 47 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act? Held that - The provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act have no application to proceedings under section 47 of the Act. We find absolutely no merit in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner based on rule 36(4) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules.
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to revision applications under Section 47 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act. 2. Power of the revisional authority to condone delay in filing revision petitions under Section 47 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to revision applications under Section 47 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act The primary question referred to the larger Bench was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked for condoning the delay in filing revision applications under Section 47 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act. The court examined the provisions of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, specifically Section 47 and Section 62, alongside Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. The court noted that Section 47(3) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act stipulates that a revision application must be filed within two years from the date of communication of the order in question. Section 62(2) of the Act explicitly states that only Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act apply to revisions under Section 47, thereby excluding the applicability of Section 5. The court referenced multiple precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow v. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur, which held that tax authorities are not courts but administrative tribunals, and thus, the principles of the Limitation Act, particularly Sections 5 and 14, do not apply unless expressly included by the statute. Issue 2: Power of the revisional authority to condone delay in filing revision petitions under Section 47 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act The petitioner argued that the absence of a specific proviso excluding the applicability of Section 5 in Section 47, unlike in Section 45(1), implies that the revisional authority has the power to condone delay. They contended that Rule 39 of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, which applies the provisions of Rules 36 to 38 (related to appeals) to revisions, supports this interpretation. However, the court found that Rule 36(4), which prescribes the procedure for filing an application for condonation of delay, does not confer any power on the revisional authority to condone delay beyond the prescribed period. The court emphasized that Section 62(2) of the Act, by limiting the applicability of the Limitation Act to Sections 4 and 12, clearly indicates the legislative intent to exclude Section 5. The court reiterated that the revisional authority under the Delhi Sales Tax Act is not a court and, therefore, does not possess inherent powers to condone delay unless expressly provided by the statute. The court cited several judgments, including Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., which held that the phrase "but not thereafter" in statutory provisions amounts to an express exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Conclusion: The court concluded that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under Section 47 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act. The revisional authority does not have the power to condone delays in filing revision petitions beyond the prescribed period. The reference was answered accordingly, and the petitions were directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench for further proceedings.
|
