TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompetent legislature, can only be interpreted by this court. The court cannot prescribe any period of limitation contrary thereto nor can it re-frame or re-word the statutory provision itself. Statute of limitation or a statutory provision prescribing a period of limitation and incapable of two interpretations ought to be construed by its terms. It the language is plain, unambiguous and clear, there is no scope for interpretation. We cannot whittle down or dilute the effect or rigor of the clear provision on some specious, general and vague plea or assumption of hardship and inconvenience to an individual. There is no power in this court to entertain a time barred application as the general power under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal is right in concluding that this is one more attempt to delay the recoveries. - Decided against the appellant - Sales Tax Application No. 3, 4, 5 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2016 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And A. A. Sayed, JJ. For the Appellant : Ms. Jyoti K. Vyas For the Respondent : Mr. V. A. Sonpal ORDER P. C. 1) The applicant appeared in person, in the sense that he authorised his wife Ms. Jyoti K. Vyas, who has identified herself, to remain present and argue the matters. She has argued the applications on the earlier occasion. She has also tendered written arguments. In her presence, we stated that the orders will be dictated in open court today. She requested the registry to inform her about the outcome of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot override provisions of Central Sales Tax Act. So parameters applied under Para No. 20 are against principles of law finding is vitiated by application of wrong tests. (vi) Tribunal was under duty to examine entire evidence which is under custody of Sales Tax Officer as per his letter of 1/2/2001 which was produced by appellant before Tribunal and there as even admission by respondent in writing two times that they are ready to examine transactions undertaken directly by the company tribunal has even gone beyond such admission which is against Dictates of Order 23 of C. P. Code. (vii) Decision rendered in case of agent firm associated Marketing service under S. A. No. 950-952 cannot operate as res-judicata in these appeals in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded by the review petitioner that the alternate remedy has become time barred. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents. In response to a suggestion given by the Court, the learned AGP states that if the petitioner avails of the alternative remedy, no objection on the ground of limitation will be raised. 4. We accordingly direct that if the petitioners avail of alternate remedy in accordance of law, the same shall be entertained by the appropriate forum without raising the objection of limitation. The review petition is accordingly disposed of. 7) Thus, on 11th September, 2015, these applications have been filed. 8) Mr. V. A. Sonpal learned special counsel appearing for the Revenue/Department would submit that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication as the general power under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is restricted in its application to proceedings under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. We find, therefore, that the review order is of no assistance to the applicant. 10) Even otherwise, we find that the Tribunal has rightly concluded that none of the questions, which are now pressed before us can be said to be questions of law. The order passed by the Tribunal takes note of all the arguments and which have been canvassed. This is not a case where a mixed question and of the above nature can be said to be question of law. Though it is urged that there is a perversity and the finding of fact is vitiated by total non consideration of evidence, what w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... net. There was no proof of any inter-State sale. There was nothing on facts which could determine or enable the Tribunal to conclude that the assessment order and the first appellate authority's order are vitiated on law and facts. The Tribunal found that the applicant, for the period in question, namely, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, filed second appeals before the Tribunal. These second appeals were dismissed on 30th November, 2009. The Tribunal found that all the issues, which could have been raised, have been already raised and dealt with. Now, in the garb of seeking a reference of certain legal questions to this court for its answer and opinion, the recoveries cannot be delayed. 13) We have found from the detailed written submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
