9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 6 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxTime Limitation - whether the High Court while exercising revisional power under Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, condone the delay in case a revision under Section 48 of the Act of 2005, is filed beyond 90 days from the date of communication of the order or it excludes the applicability of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and in consequence of Section 5 of the Limitation Act? HELD THAT - The provisions contained in Section 29 of the Limitation Act deals with savings. The provisions in respect to the limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, is different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply if the Schedule prescribed such period. The provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 shall apply only in so far as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded. Section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with the extension of the prescribed period in particular exigencies. The provision applies to the Court and is excluded in the application to the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). It provides that if the Court is satisfied that the appellant/applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within limitation, the Court may admit the same after the prescribed period. Explanation attached to Section 5 makes it clear that in case the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice, or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period, may be sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5. Section 81 deals with revision, and section 84 deals with the Limitation Act. Section 84 makes a vital difference for the Chapter in which the provision of section 81 finds a place. Only the provisions of sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act are made applicable, and other provisions stand excluded by limited application of the provisions of the Limitation Act. The decision under the Assam VAT Act has turned on the aforesaid crucial provision of section 84. The provisions contained in section 45 provides for an appeal from every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made thereunder. Subsection (4) of section 45 provides appeal to be filed within 60 days, or such more extended period as the appellate authority may allow, for reasons to be recorded in writing. Thus, because of the provisions contained in section 45(4), the principles of section 5 would apply to an appeal before the appellate authority, which otherwise in the absence of specific provision would not have applied to authority. The revision is provided to the Commissioner suo motu under the provisions of section 46(1), and the period provided is 5 years for suo motu exercise of revisional power. However, the tribunal has the power to entertain application within 60 days from the date of communication of the order. When we consider the provisions of section 48, revision is provided to the High Court, and an aggrieved person may within 90 days of the communication of such order, file a revision. Section 48(1) nowhere expressly excludes the applicability of provisions of the Limitation Act. The provisions of section 5 are applicable to Section 48 as they are not expressly excluded by the provisions under the Act of 2005. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are held applicable to the revisional provision under Section 48 of the Act of 2005. The impugned judgments and orders are set aside - the cases are remitted to the High Court to examine the same on merits in accordance with the law.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court can condone the delay in filing a revision under Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, beyond 90 days. 2. Whether Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and consequently Section 5 of the Limitation Act, are applicable to revisions under Section 48 of the Act of 2005. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. High Court's Power to Condon the Delay Beyond 90 Days: The High Court, in its impugned judgment, refused to condone the delay in the revision filed under Section 48 read with Section 64(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, relying on a previous decision which held that the High Court cannot condone the delay as Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply. The High Court concluded that the revision must be filed within 90 days as stipulated in Section 48 of the Act of 2005. 2. Applicability of Section 29 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act: The Supreme Court examined whether Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, which deals with the applicability of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act to special or local laws, applies to the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Section 29(2) states that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act shall apply unless expressly excluded by the special or local law. The Court noted that Section 48 of the Act of 2005 does not expressly exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court referenced multiple precedents to support its interpretation, including: - Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra: The Court held that even if a special law does not expressly exclude Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, it is open to the Court to examine whether the scheme of the special law necessarily excludes their operation. - Sakuru v. Tanaji: The provisions of the Limitation Act apply only to proceedings in courts unless expressly provided otherwise in special statutes. - Lata Kamat v. Vilas: The Court held that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply unless expressly excluded by the special law. - State of W.B. v. Kartick Chandra Das: The Court held that in the absence of express exclusion, Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to special laws. - Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker: The Court held that if a special law does not expressly exclude the Limitation Act, then Section 5 applies. - Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi: The Court held that the provision of a period of limitation in peremptory language is not sufficient to displace the applicability of Section 5. The Supreme Court concluded that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply to revisions under Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, as there is no express exclusion. The Court noted that the scheme of the Act of 2005 does not imply exclusion of the Limitation Act. The Court thus held that the High Court has the power to condone the delay in filing revisions under Section 48 of the Act of 2005. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable to revisions under Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The cases were remitted to the High Court for examination on merits in accordance with the law.
|
