Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 648 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2016 (5) TMI 648 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT - TMI - Condonation of delay of 335 days in preferring the revision - Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitations Act, 1963 to a revision filed - Section 81(1) of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Held that:- from the various judicial pronouncements it is crystallized that the statutory period for preferring appeal and/or revision under a special Act cannot be enlarged by taking recourse to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act when there is an express o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

terpret the law in such a manner so as to read into the Act an inherent power of condoning the delay by invoking section 5 of the 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 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 Miscellaneous Applications by this common order. For a proper appreciation of the issue, the facts involved in MC 1041/2015 are briefly stated herein below, taking the same as the lead case. 2. The petitio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ndent No. 2, i.e. the Superintendent of Taxes, had computed the assessment, thereby, allowing full exemption of sales tax to the aforesaid sale transactions as per the provisions of Section 8(5) of the CST Act, 1956. However, subsequently the Form C submitted by the petitioner turned out to be fake documents as a result of which the respondent No. 2 had passed an order dated 29/06/2004 for the years 1998-99 reducing the exemption earlier granted to the petitioner besides imposing penalty. Simila .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al would be admitted on deposit of such amount and the balance amount would be deemed to be stayed. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue (Appellate Tribunal ) against the said order dated 29/07/2005 which was dismissed by the order dated 26/08/2008. A review application filed against the aforesaid order also came to be dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 27/08/2013. Situated thus, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a revision und .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

jbongshi, 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

learned counsel places reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Hongo India Private Ltd. reported in (2009) 5 SCC 791 as well as another decision of the Division bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Williamson Tea (Assam) Ltd. reported in (2010) 1 GLR 57. 5. Mr. Joshi, learned senior counsel, on the other hand submits that even though section 81(1) of the Act of 2003 prescribes a period of 60 days with .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n appeal is presented beyond the prescribed period of 60 days. Similar provisions can be found in section 80 of the Act of 2003, whereby even the Appellate Tribunal has been conferred with the power to accept appeals filed after the expiry of 50 days for a further period of 120 days. It is, therefore, completely illogical, submits Mr Joshi, that the Legislator would have intended to deny such discretionary power of condoning the delay to the High Court, which is the superior forum under the Act. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

409 III. 60 ITR, CIT Vs. Sahajada Nand 6. We have carefully noted the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties. In order to resolve the contentious issue involved in this proceeding, it would be essential to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act of 2003 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 decisio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 date of receipt of the judgement. (5) A revision or revie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963) shall, so far as may be, apply. 8. From a reading of the aforementioned provisions of the Act of 2003, what can be seen is that the intention of the legislature was to limit the application of the Limitations Act, 1963 only to sections 4 and 12 of the Act, to a proceeding under this chapter and section 5 has been consciously excluded from the purview of section 84. From a reading of section 84 of the Act of 2003, it is evident that the Legislature did not intend to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ct of 2003 goes to show that it is a complete code not only laying down the forums but also prescribing the time limit within which each forum would be competent to entertain the appeal or the revision. The underlying object of the Act appears to be to shorten the length of the proceedings initiated under the different provisions contained therein but also to ensure finality of the decisions made there under. The fact that the period of limitation prescribed therein has been equally made applica .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. 12. In the case of Union of India Vs. Popular Construction Co. Reported in (2001) 8 SCC 470, the apex Court, while dealing with the question of applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al or local law to, in terms, exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act. It is sufficient if on a consideration of the language of its provisions relating to limitation, the intention to exclude can be necessarily implied. As has been said in Hukumdev Narain Yadav V. Lalit Narain Mishra reported in (1974) 2 SCC 133 (SCC p. 146, para 17). If on an examination of the relevant provisions it is clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act are necessarily excluded, then the benefits conferred t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that power to condone the delay is implicit in several statutory provisions would render Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act as redundant. The Apex Court has held that where words are unequivocal, the principles of interpretation cannot be applied to read something more. 14. In the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Hongpo India Private Ltd. and another (supra), the Apex Court had dealt with a similar issue regarding the power of the High Court to condone delay beyond the pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pressly 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 exa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e nature of the subject-matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation. In other words, the applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act, therefore, is to be judged not from the terms of the Limitation Act but by the provisions of the Central Excise Act relating to filing of reference application to the High Court. 15. In the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Williamson Tea (Assam) Ltd. (Supra), a question as to the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for preferring appeal and/or revision under a special Act cannot be enlarged by taking recourse to section 29(2) of the Limitation Act when there is an express or implied exclusion of the applicability of the provision of section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963. As has been mentioned above, the language employed in section 84 of the Act of 2003 clearly indicates that the provisions of the Limitation Act, save and except section 4 and 12, have been excluded from their applicability to any proceedin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nsidering 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 did the department raise any question as regards maintainability of the application filed under section 5 of the Limitations Act nor was the applicability of section 5 to the proceeding under the Act of 2003 an issue before this court. As such, the order dated 25/06/2014 appears to have been passed in the facts of that c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version