TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application to condone the delay within that period. In the light of the well-established principles of law and the statutory provisions under the Act, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the KAT in the order impugned, calling for interference. W.P. dismissed. Petitions without merit, are rejected. - Writ Petition Nos. 14216, 14426, 2174,2175 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 26-3-2013 - RAM MOHAN REDDY, J. ORDER:- RAM MOHAN REDDY J.- Since common questions of law and that of fact arise for decision making, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this order. The core question for decision making is, whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18, 2012-annexure C. Hence these petitions. Section 22(2) of the Act reads thus: 22. (2) The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal preferred after the period of sixty days referred to in sub-section (1), but within a further period of one hundred and eighty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period. The Act is a special statute prescribing a period of limitation for filing an appeal before the KAT and provides in clear terms that such period, on sufficient cause being shown, may be extended in the maximum only up to 60 + 180 days and no further, whereafterwards the KAT would have no jurisdiction to treat within limitation, an application filed before it beyo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd unambiguous, the court is not competent to supply the omission by engrafting on it or introducing in it, under the guise of interpretation, by analogy or implication, something what it thinks to be a general principle of justice and equity. To do so, 'would be entrenching upon the preserves of the Legislature', the primary function of a court of law being jus dicere and not jus dare. The High Court therefore was in error in importing whole hog the principle of section 14(2) of the Limitation Act into section 10 (3B) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. . . (b) In Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [2008] 12 VST 542 (SC); [2008] 10 RC 174; [2008] 3 SCC 70, the apex court having regard to section 35 and the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
