TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e limitations Act so as to supplement the provisions of the Act when the Act of 2003 excludes the operation of section 5 by necessary implications. In the present case whether or not there is an express or implied exclusion of the operation of any of the provisions of the Limitations Act, 1963 is to be considered not on the basis of the language used in Section 29(2) of the Limitations Act but by giving a purposive interpretation to the relevant provisions of the Act of 2003. Therefore, the applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitations Act, 1963 are not maintainable in law. - Decided against the appellant - MC 1041/2015 in Revn. Pet. Sl. No. 250005 - - - Dated:- 7-4-2016 - Chief Justice And Suman Shyam, JJ. For the Applicants : Mr. G.K. Joshi, Adv. Mr. R.K. Joshi, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. U. Rajbongshi, AAG Mr.S. Chetia, Adv. JUDGMENT Suman Shyam, J 1. Since a common question of law as to whether the provisions of section 5 of the Limitations Act, 1963 would be applicable to a revision filed under Section 81(1) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 arises for determination in this series of applications, we propose to dispose of all these Misc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condoning the delay of 335 days in preferring the revision. 3. Heard Mr. G.K. Joshi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R.K. Joshi, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner in all the cases. Also heard Mr. U. Rajbongshi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. S. Chetia, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents. 4. At the outset, the State counsel has raised objection regarding maintainability of the applications filed by the petitioner under section 5 of the Limitations Act, 1963 praying for condonation of delay stating that section 81(1) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short the Act of 2003) does not confer any jurisdiction upon the High Court to entertain a revision petition against an order passed by the appellate Tribunal beyond the statutory period of 60 days and that section 5 of the Limitations Act, 1963 is not applicable to a proceeding under section 81(1) of the Act. The learned State Counsel submits that in view of the specific provisions contained in section 84 of the Act of 2003, there is no scope for condonation of delay of 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03 as well as section 29(2) of the Limitations Act, 1963. Section 81 of the Act of 2003 provides for filing a revision before the High Court against a decision of an Appellate Tribunal within 60 days after being notified of the decision of the Tribunal. Section 81 is quoted herein below :- 81. Revision to High Court (1) Any dealer or other person, who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, or the Commissioner may, within sixty days after being notified of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, file a revision to the High Court; and the dealer or other person so appealing shall serve a copy of the notice of revision on the respondents to the proceedings. (2) A revision to the High Court may be made on question of law or an erroneous decision or failure to decide a question of law that shall be raised in the revision. (3) The Commissioner shall also be made a party to the proceedings before the High Court where revision is filed by the dealer or other person. (4) The High Court may on application either by the petitioner or by any of the respondents review any order passed by it provided such application is made within one year from the da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in section 84. 10. By referring to the provision of section 29(2) of the Limitations Act. 1963, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has sought to canvas that in the absence of any specific provisions contained in the Act of 2003 expressly excluding the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, section 29(2) will come into play since the Act of 2003 is a special/ local Act where there is no period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act. Relying upon the decision of the State of Kerala and others Vs. Dr. S.G. Sarvothama Prabhu reported in (1999) 2 SCC 622, Mr. Joshi submits that since the words in Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 are unambiguous, clear and explicit, there is no scope for interpretation of the said provision contrary to the language of the statute. 11. Section 29(2) of the Limitations Act, 1963 reads as follows:- 29(2) - Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Apex Court had dealt with a similar issue regarding the power of the High Court to condone delay beyond the period specified under Section 35-H of the Central Excise Act wherein and where under it was provided that an appeal and reference to High Court should be made within 180 days from the date of communication of the decision or order. Opining that the time limit prescribed for making reference to the High Court is absolute and unextendable by Court under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Apex Court had made the following observations :- 35. It was contended before us that the words expressly excluded would mean that there must be an express reference made in the special or local law to the specific provisions of the Limitation Act of which the operation is to be excluded. In this regard, we have to see the scheme of the special law which here in this case is the Central Excise Act. The nature of the remedy provided therein is such that the legislature intended it to be a complete Code by itself which alone should govern the several matters provided by it. If, on an examination of the relevant provisions, it is clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the language used by it and it is not permissible to the Court to speculate about the legislative intent. He submits that due to the clearer language and expression used in section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, this Court should accept the applicability of the Limitation Act rather than to speculate on the true legislative intent. Having regard to the ratio laid down in the case Hongo India Pvt Ltd (supra ), we do not find force in the said submission made by the learned senior counsel. 18. By referring to the order dated 25/06/2014 passed by the Division bench of this Court in M.C. 1771/2014 Mr. Joshi submits that by the said order the delay of 82 days in filing revision petition under section 81(1) of the Act had been condoned by invoking section 5 of the Limitation Act for the ends of justice and as such the learned counsel submits that a similar approach is called for even in the present batch of applications. A perusal of the order dated 25/06/2014 goes to show that the same was passed without considering the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements of the Apex court on the question of applicability of section 5 of the limitations Act. It further appears that neither ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
