9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 648 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxCondonation of delay of 335 days in preferring the revision - Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitations Act, 1963 to a revision filed - Section 81(1) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Held that - from the various judicial pronouncements it is crystallized that the statutory period for preferring appeal and/or revision under a special Act cannot be enlarged by taking recourse to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act when there is an express or implied exclusion of the applicability of the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963. The language employed in section 84 of the Act of 2003 clearly indicates that the provisions of the Limitation Act, save and except section 4 and 12, have been excluded from their applicability to any proceeding under that chapter and as such Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would have no applicability in a proceeding filed under Section 81(1) of the Act of 2003. The court cannot interpret the law in such a manner so as to read into the Act an inherent power of condoning the delay by invoking section 5 of the limitations Act so as to supplement the provisions of the Act when the Act of 2003 excludes the operation of section 5 by necessary implications. In the present case whether or not there is an express or implied exclusion of the operation of any of the provisions of the Limitations Act, 1963 is to be considered not on the basis of the language used in Section 29(2) of the Limitations Act but by giving a purposive interpretation to the relevant provisions of the Act of 2003. Therefore, the applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitations Act, 1963 are not maintainable in law. - Decided against the appellant
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to a revision filed under Section 81(1) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 2. Interpretation of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 in relation to the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 3. Legislative intent and statutory interpretation concerning the exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963: The primary issue was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to a revision petition filed under Section 81(1) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner argued that the High Court has the power to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by invoking Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. The petitioner pointed out that similar discretionary powers are granted to the appellate authority and the Appellate Tribunal under Sections 79 and 80 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. However, the court noted that Section 84 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 specifically limits the application of the Limitation Act to Sections 4 and 12 only, thereby excluding Section 5. The court concluded that the legislature did not intend to confer upon the High Court the discretionary jurisdiction to condone delays under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. Interpretation of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963: The petitioner contended that in the absence of express exclusion, Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act should apply, allowing the High Court to condone delays. The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including Union of India Vs. Popular Construction Co. and Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Hongo India Private Ltd., which held that special laws providing specific limitation periods implicitly exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court emphasized that the statutory period for filing appeals or revisions under special Acts cannot be extended by invoking Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act when such Acts implicitly exclude Section 5. 3. Legislative Intent and Statutory Interpretation: The court examined the legislative intent behind the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, noting that it is a complete code prescribing specific time limits for various forums, including the High Court. The court concluded that the exclusion of Section 5 from Section 84 of the Act indicates the legislature's intention to limit the application of the Limitation Act to Sections 4 and 12 only. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the High Court should have inherent power to condone delays, stating that judicial interpretation must align with the clear language of the statute and the legislative intent. Conclusion: The court dismissed the applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as not maintainable, and consequently disposed of the connected revision petitions. The judgment emphasized that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to condone delays in filing revision petitions under Section 81(1) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, due to the specific exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the legislature.
|
