Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1994 (2) TMI 272

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ision petitions, whereas in some cases, there was a period prescribed for condoning the delay in filing the revision petitions. Of course, in one of the cases, it is submitted that the proceeding has been started under section 22 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, after coming into force of the Amendment Act 76 of 1986. 2.. Therefore, the question that has to be considered is as to whether there is a vested right in the petitioners to have the delay in filing the revision petition condoned with reference to the law that stood on the date the proceedings commenced or whether the law that is obtaining on the date the revision petitions are filed has to be applied for condonation of the delay in filing the revision petitions. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... elay. Therefore, it has been held that the revision petition filed beyond the period of 45 days after the expiry of the period of limitation is not maintainable. 5.. Thus, two Division Benches have taken diametrically opposite views. If only there had not been any decision of the Supreme Court directly bearing upon the point, it would have been a matter to be decided by a larger Bench, because the decision of a Division Bench cannot at all be overruled by another Division Bench. However, the Supreme Court in Vinod Gurudas Raikar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [1992] 75 Comp Cas 611; AIR 1991 SC 2156 has considered this question. In that case, an application under the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation, was filed beyond the time. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld that the High Court was right in its view that the case was covered by the new Act, and delay for a longer period than six months could not be condoned. The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs". 6.. Therefore, it is evident that the Supreme Court has held that the law as to condonation of delay relates to procedure and as such, the law that is obtaining on the date the case is filed, has to be applied. The decision in Vinod Gurudas Raikar's case [1992] 75 Comp Cas 611 (SC); AIR 1991 SC 2156 has again been affirmed and followed in the decision reported in Union of India v. Harnam Singh [1993] 82 FJR 301 (SC); [1993] 2 SCC 162. Thus, the view taken in Aristo Paints (P.) Ltd. [1992] 85 STC 54 (Mad.); [1992] 1 MTCR .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nly in the manner prescribed for the time being in force, and if the mode of procedure is altered, he has no other option but to proceed according to the altered mode, and a change in the law of procedure operates retrospectively unlike the law relating to vested right. We have already pointed out that as far as the condonation of delay in filing an appeal or revision is concerned, there is no vested right. It is only a matter of procedure and as it is only a privilege to claim benefit of the provision of condonation of delay, it can only be governed by the law in force at the time of delay, as pointed out in Vinod Gurudas Raikar's case [1992] 75 Comp Cas 611 (SC); AIR 1991 SC 2156. 7.. We may also point out that Hoosein Kasam Dada's case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Accordingly, these T.C.M.Ps. are allowed. The delay in filing the revision petitions is condoned. ORDER: T.C.M.P. Nos. 298 and 299 of 1993 having been set down this day for being mentioned pursuant the Order of this Court dated December 17, 1993 and made in T.C.M.P. No. 29 of 1993 and connected petitions, in the presence of the aforesaid Advocates the court made the following Order: The Order of the Court was made by the honourable the Chief Justice. These two petitions were disposed of along with T.C.M.Ps. 29 of 1993 and other connected petitions on the basis that the delay caused in these petitions was more than the limit prescribed by Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 for condoning the delay in filing the revision petitions. I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates