9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 599 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxTime Limitation - whether this Court can entertain a Revision Petition under Section 48(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, which is filed beyond the period of limitation so prescribed in the Statute? Held that - There is no provision whatsoever contained in Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 by virtue of which it con be inferred that that any provision of Limitation Act was to apply to a proceeding under this Act - application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to a proceeding under Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 stands excluded by necessary implication, by virtue of the language employed in Section 48. It is relevant to refer to the law laid down Hon ble Supreme Court in Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra 1973 (12) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT , wherein it has been held that where a Statute is a complete code in itself, meaning thereby that it is a substantive as well as procedural code, then the application of Limitation Act has to be seen from the scope of application of the Statute and not the Limitation Act. Thus, Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, is a complete code in itself, which, in other words, is both a substantive as well as a procedural law and as there is no provision contained in the Act, making the provisions of Limitation Act applicable to the proceedings which are to originate from the Act - this Court has no inherent power to condone the delay in entertaining a Revision Petition which stands filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in the Act. The applications for condonation of delay in filing the Revision Petitions are not maintainable - application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court can entertain a Revision Petition under Section 48(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, filed beyond the period of limitation. 2. Whether the High Court can condone the delay in filing a Revision Petition under Section 48(1) by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entertaining a Revision Petition Beyond the Period of Limitation: The primary issue in these petitions is whether the High Court can entertain a Revision Petition under Section 48(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, if it is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The court noted that all the Revision Petitions in question were time-barred, with delays extending up to more than two years and nine months in some cases. The statutory language of Section 48 is clear and unambiguous, stating that a person aggrieved by an order made by the tribunal may apply for revision within 90 days of the communication of such order. There is no provision in the statute that allows for a time-barred Revision Petition to be entertained by the High Court. 2. Condonation of Delay Using Section 5 of the Limitation Act: The court examined whether it could apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing a Revision Petition under Section 48(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The contention was that the application for condonation of delay is maintainable, and the court has the power to condone the delay. However, the court referred to several judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, which have consistently held that specific statutes can exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. For instance, in the case of *State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Anshuman Shukla*, the Supreme Court held that the absence of an express rider on the power of the High Court to entertain an application for revision beyond the prescribed period implied that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable. Similarly, in *Patel Brothers vs. State of Assam*, the Supreme Court concluded that the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to a proceeding under Section 81(1) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act was excluded by necessary implication. The court also referred to the judgment in *Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs. Hongo India Private Limited*, where the Supreme Court held that the time-limit prescribed under Section 35-H(1) of the Central Excise Act was absolute and unextendable by the court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court concluded that the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, is a complete code in itself, both substantive and procedural, and does not contain any provision making the Limitation Act applicable to its proceedings. Therefore, the court has no inherent power to condone the delay in filing a Revision Petition beyond the prescribed period. Conclusion: The applications for condonation of delay in filing the Revision Petitions are not maintainable. The court reiterated that it has no inherent power to either entertain such applications or condone the delay in filing the Revision Petitions. Consequently, the applications were dismissed.
|
