2017 (1) TMI 330 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay - Interpretation of statute - Whether provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable in respect of revision petition filed in the High Court under Section 81 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003? - Held that - In the task of interpreting and applying a statue, Judges have to be conscious that in the end the statue is the master not the servant of the judgment and no judge has a choice between implementing it and disobeying it - What, therefore, follows is that 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 Limitation Act, 1963 so as to supplement the provisions of the VAT Act which excludes the operation of Section 5 by necessary implications. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to revision petitions filed under Section 81 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (VAT Act).

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to Revision Petitions under Section 81 of the VAT Act

Background:
The appellant, a registered dealer, filed revision petitions under Section 81 of the VAT Act with a delay of 335 days and sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The High Court dismissed the applications for condonation, holding that Section 5 was not applicable.

Arguments by Appellant:
The appellant's counsel argued that the High Court's interpretation was faulty as it did not consider other provisions of the VAT Act and Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. He highlighted:
- Section 79 of the VAT Act: Allows appeals to the Appellate Authority with a provision for condonation of delay up to 180 days.
- Section 80 of the VAT Act: Similar provisions for appeals to the Appellate Tribunal with a condonation period of up to 120 days.
- Section 81 of the VAT Act: No specific provision for condonation of delay, implying that Section 5 of the Limitation Act should apply.
- Section 84 of the VAT Act: Only makes Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act applicable, which the High Court interpreted as excluding Section 5.

Legal Precedents Cited:
- Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi: Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes Sections 4 to 24 applicable unless expressly excluded.
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anshuman Shukla: Similar application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to special laws unless expressly excluded.

Arguments by Respondents:
The respondents argued that the High Court correctly interpreted Section 84 of the VAT Act, which by making only Sections 4 and 12 applicable, excluded other provisions of the Limitation Act, including Section 5. They cited:
- Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra: The legislative intent and scheme of the special law should be examined to determine if the Limitation Act is excluded.

Supreme Court's Analysis:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing:
- Legislative Intent: Section 84 of the VAT Act specifically includes only Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, implying the exclusion of other sections, including Section 5.
- Precedent in Hongo India Private Limited: Similar provisions in the Central Excise Act were interpreted to exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
- Scheme of VAT Act: The VAT Act is a complete code prescribing specific time limits for appeals and revisions, indicating an intent to exclude Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the VAT Act, by including only Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act in Section 84, excludes the applicability of Section 5 by necessary implication. The High Court's judgment was affirmed, and the appeals were dismissed.

Final Judgment:
The appeals were dismissed, affirming that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to revision petitions filed under Section 81 of the VAT Act.

← Previous Next →