9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ateria to Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh VAT Act, 2005 relating to revisional power of the High Court. A limitation of 90 days from the date of communication of the order for preferring a Revision before High Court was provided under Section 48 of the Act of 2005. The Himachal Pradesh VAT Act, 2005 also did not provide for a separate provision for condonation of delay. The Apex Court upon consideration of a number of decisions on the issue arrived at an opinion that in the absence of express exclusion or even implied exclusion the application of Limitation Act to such a special law cannot be denied. The Apex Court upon consideration of a number of decisions on the issue arrived at an opinion that in the absence of express exclusion o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the assessment year 2017-18. By the impugned common order dated 15.10.2022 the learned Commissioner of Taxes, respondent No.3, has decided the revision petition in respect of the VAT assessment for A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. The matter was earlier remanded for the petitioner to avail alternative remedy vide order dated 07.03.2022 passed in WP(C) No.221 of 2022 (Annexure-5). The Assessing Authority had by the order dated 29.07.2019 imposed tax, interest and penalty upon the petitioner which was challenged in revision under Section 70(2) of the TVAT Act, 2004 before the learned Commissioner of Taxes after liberty granted by this Court. The Revision Petition was dismissed on 15.10.2022 except relating to the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equirement of filing of certified copy of the impugned order as it has already been filed in the main matter, i.e. CRP No.44 of 2023. Since photocopy of the common impugned order has been filed in the other connected revision petitions, the prayer for dispensing the requirement of filing of certified copy is allowed. All the I.A.s stand disposed of. [2] No objection petition has been filed by the State to the interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay. Whether the delay in preferring the instant petition under Section 72 of the TVAT Act, 2004 is condonable or not as the special statute does not provide for condonation of delay beyond the period of 60 days is the legal issue raised for consideration in the instant pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he High Court for decision on merits. [4] It is submitted that the relevant provision of Section 74 of the TVAT Act, 2004 though do not specifically provide for condonation of delay but if read in entirety neither through express exclusion nor by implied exclusion prohibit the application of Limitation Act for condonation of delay beyond the period of 60 days as provided under Section 72 of the TVAT Act. It is submitted that the petitioner has furnished sufficient explanation for condonation of delay in the interlocutory applications. The wife of the petitioner was suffering from serious illness. The medical papers have also been annexed to the interlocutory applications which show that delay was neither intentional nor inordinate. After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It appears on a perusal of the decision of the Apex Court that the instant revisional provisions under Section 72 of the TVAT Act are in pari materia to Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh VAT Act, 2005 relating to revisional power of the High Court. A limitation of 90 days from the date of communication of the order for preferring a Revision before High Court was provided under Section 48 of the Act of 2005. The Himachal Pradesh VAT Act, 2005 also did not provide for a separate provision for condonation of delay. The Apex Court upon consideration of a number of decisions on the issue arrived at an opinion that in the absence of express exclusion or even implied exclusion the application of Limitation Act to such a special law cannot be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all remain in force for more than 30 days unless the applicant furnishes adequate security to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority concerned. (4) The application for revision under sub-section (1) or the application for stay under sub-section (3) shall be heard and decided by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges. (5) No order shall be passed under this section which adversely affects any person unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Section 72 of the TVAT Act: 72. Revision to High Court - (1) A dealer or a transporter who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Tribunal or Revisional Authority may, within sixty days after being notified of the decision, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
