2013 (3) TMI 572 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing STA Nos. 1844 and 1845 of 2011 on the premise of having been filed after the expiry of the period of 60 days and a further period of 180 days prescribed by sub-section (2) of section 22 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, for short, the Act , and therefore had no jurisdiction to treat within the limitation, an application filed before it beyond such maximum time-limit? Held that - The KAT being a creator of the statute vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay within the permissible period provided under the Act, can therefore entertain an application to condone the delay within that period. In the light of the well-established principles of law and the statutory provisions under the Act, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the KAT in the order impugned, calling for interference. W.P. dismissed. Petitions without merit, are rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal to dismiss appeals filed beyond the prescribed time limit under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis:
The core issue in this judgment revolves around the jurisdiction of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) in dismissing appeals filed beyond the specified time limit under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The petitioner failed to register under the Act despite holding a quarry sand license, leading to tax non-payment. The KAT dismissed the appeals (STA Nos. 1844 and 1845 of 2011) as they were filed after the expiry of the 60-day period and an additional 180-day period prescribed by section 22(2) of the Act. The KAT held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain appeals filed beyond the maximum time limit, thus raising the question of whether the KAT was justified in its decision.

Section 22(2) of the Act explicitly states that the Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal filed after the initial 60-day period, but within a further 180 days if there is a sufficient cause for the delay. The Act being a special statute, limits the extension of the time period for filing appeals to a maximum of 60 + 180 days. The legislative intent is clear that the Tribunal can only entertain appeals within this extended timeframe, and any application filed beyond this limit falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The judgment cites legal precedents to support the position that there is a complete exclusion of the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in such cases. The courts are bound to adhere to the legislative intent expressed in the Act, especially considering it is a taxing statute. The KAT, as the authority created by the statute, has the power to condone delays within the specified period, but not beyond. The judgment emphasizes that the KAT's decision aligns with established legal principles and statutory provisions, warranting no interference.

In conclusion, the petitions challenging the KAT's decision are deemed without merit and are rejected based on the well-established legal principles and statutory provisions under the Act. The judgment affirms the KAT's jurisdictional stance regarding the dismissal of appeals filed beyond the prescribed time limit, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory limitations in legal proceedings.