Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Patel Brothers Versus State of Assam and Others

2017 (1) TMI 330 - SUPREME COURT

Condonation of delay - Interpretation of statute - Whether provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable in respect of revision petition filed in the High Court under Section 81 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003? - - Held that: - In the task of interpreting and applying a statue, Judges have to be conscious that in the end the statue is the master not the servant of the judgment and no judge has a choice between implementing it and disobeying it - What, therefore, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Adv., Mr. Karma Dorjee, Adv., Mr. Vaibhav Tomar, Adv., Ms. Shruti Choudhry, Adv. and Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv. for the Appellants. Mr. Nalin Kohli, Adv., Mr. Ankit Roy, Adv., Ms. Vishakha Ahuja, Adv. and Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Adv. for the Respondents. JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted. 2. The question of law which has fallen for determination in these appeals is as to whether provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable in respect of revision petition filed in the High Court .....

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 sales of his business, the appellant had submitted the declaration in Form C for the years 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 reflecting the value of sales. Based on the representation made by the appellant, Respondent No. 2/Superintendent of Tax allowed full exemption of sales tax as per Section 8(5) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. But, the information given by the appellant turned out to be false and as a result of which Respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 29.06.2004 reducing 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

30 days and stayed rest of the demand. The appellant preferred appeals before the Assam Board of Revenue/Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 29.07.2005, which was dismissed by the order dated 26.08.2008. A review application filed against the aforesaid order came to be dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal by the order dated 27.08.2013. Aggrieved, appellant filed Revision Petitions under section 81(1) of the VAT Act. 4. Section 81 of the VAT Act also prescribes a limitation period of 60 da .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t which makes provisions of Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to such petitions. On that basis, it is held by the High Court that since only Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are made specifically applicable to these proceedings, by necessary implication Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded. 5. It was argued by Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that the approach of the High Court in dealing with the provisions of VAT Act and applicabil .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thin 60 days from the date of receipt of such order of the taxing authority. Sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the VAT Act empowers the appellate authority to entertain the appeal even beyond 60 days, provided it is presented within a further period of 180 days, if the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the stipulated period of 60 days. Relevant portion of Section 79 of the VAT Act reads as under: 79. Appeals 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

f the said period provided it is presented within a further period of one hundred eighty days 6. The learned counsel next referred to Section 80 of the VAT Act 80. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal: (1) Any person aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order,- (a) an order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 79, and (b) an order passed by an authority not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Taxes. (2) omitted. (3) Every appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppellate Authority. Here also, period of 60 days for preferring such an appeal is provided under sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the VAT Act and proviso to sub-section (3) empowers the Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay, if the appeal is preferred within a further period of 120 days, on sufficient cause being shown for not filing the appeal within 60 days of limitation prescribed. The learned counsel contrasted the aforesaid provisions of Sections 79 and 80 with Section 81. Revision to Hig .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ections 79 and 80 of the VAT Act, no such equivalent provision was made in Section 81 of the VAT Act. As per Section 81 of the VAT Act, revision can be preferred to the High Court against the order of the Appellate Tribunal within 60 days. However, there is no provision giving specific power to the High Court to condone the delay if the revision is preferred beyond 60 days. As per the learned counsel, the reason for not providing such a provision was that provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 inclu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under the said Chapter and High Court committed a grave error while holding that because of the aforesaid provision only Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 were made applicable to the VAT Act thereby excluding other provisions of the Act. 8. For this purpose, the learned counsel relied upon Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as under: 29(2). Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period 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

ons contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) of the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable in case of suit, appeal or application under any special or local law, where these provisions are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. 9. It was argued that in the absence of any provision expressly excluding the applicability of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, those Sections were applicable qua revision petitions filed under Section 81 of the VAT Act and, therefore, Section 5 of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of limitation provided in sub-section (4) of Section 417. Question arose whether in the case of Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh (1964) 4 SCR 982, which held Section 417, Cr.P.C., 1898 a special law and excluded application of Section 5 on a construction of Section 29(2)(b) of the old Act of 1908 applied under the corresponding provision of Limitation Act, 1963 which governed the case. The Court held that since the case was governed by Limitation Act, 1963, judgment in Kaushalya Rani case did not 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

ny special or local law the application of Section 5 was in clear and specific terms excluded. But under Section 29(2) of Act, the provisions of Section 5 shall apply in case of special or local law to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. Since under the Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 is specifically made applicable by Section 29 (2), it is only if the special or local law expressly excludes the applicability of Section 5 that it would stand displace .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to its amendment in 2005). The Court held that since unamended Section 19 did not contain any express rider on power of the High Court to entertain applications for revision after expiry of prescribed limitation thereunder, provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 would become applicable vide Section 29(2) thereof. It further held that as the High Court was conferred with suo moto power under Section 19 of Adhiniyam, 1983 to call for record of an award at any time, there was no legislative intent to e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Section 5 thereof stood excluded. He submitted that for the purpose of finding whether other provisions are excluded or not, the focus should be on the scheme of the special law as laid down in Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra (1974) 2 SCC 133 wherein it was held that even if there exists no express exclusion in the special law, the Court has right to examine the provisions of the special law to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the legislative intent was to exclude the operation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nr. (2009) 5 SCC 791, the question that fell for determination was that as to whether the High Court had power to condone the delay in presentation of the reference application under unamended Section 35-H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1994 beyond the period prescribed by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Unamended Section 35-H dealt with reference application to the High Court. Under sub-section (1) thereof, such reference application could be preferred within a period of 180 days of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

30 days if sufficient cause is shown. Likewise, appeal to the Appellate Tribunal could be filed within 90 days under Section 35-B thereof and sub-section (5) of Section 35-B gave power to the Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay irrespective of the number of days, if sufficient cause is shown. Further, Section 35-EE provided 90 days time for filing revision by the Central Government and proviso thereto empowers the revisional authority to condone the delay for a further period of 90 days. Ho .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 were pressed into service. But this argument was rejected in the following manner: 30. In the earlier part of our order, we have adverted to Chapter VI-A of the Act which provides for appeals and revisions to various authorities. Though Parliament has specifically Civil Appeal Nos. 49-50 of 2017 Page 12 of 20 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.21865-21872 of 2016) provided an additional period of 30 days in the case of appeal to the Commissi .....

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 the Act. 31. In this regard, it is useful to refer to a recent decision of this Court in Punjab Fibres Ltd. [(2008) 3 SCC 73] The Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Noida was the appellant in this case. While considering the very same question, namely, whether the High Court has power to condone the delay in presentation of the reference under Section 35-H(1) of the Act, the two-Judge Bench taking note of the said provision and the other related provisions following Singh Enterprises v. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ords, the language used in other provisions makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning the delay only up to 30 days after expiry of 60 days which is the preliminary limitation period for preferring an appeal. In the absence of any clause condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The High Court was, therefore, justified in hold .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he view that the legislature provided sufficient time, namely, 180 days for filing reference to the High Court which is more than the period prescribed for an appeal and revision. 14. In the process, the Court also explained the expression 'expressly excluded' appearing in Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the following manner: 34. Though, an argument was raised based on Section 29 of the Limitation Act, even assuming that Section 29(2) would be attracted, what we have to dete .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 are necessarily excluded, then the benefits conferred therein cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisions of the Act. In our considered view, that even in a case where the special law does not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of 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

aforesaid judgment is a complete answer to the arguments of the appellant. 15. It may be relevant to mention here that after the judgment in Hongo India Private Limited & Anr., Section 35-H of the Central Excise Act, 1994 was amended by the Parliament by Act 32 of 2003 with effect from 14.05.2003 giving power to the High Court to condone the delay by inserting sub-section (2A). It is, therefore, for the legislature to set right the deficiency, if it intends to give power to the High Court 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

case the Act, and the nature of the remedy provided therein are 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 are necessarily excluded, then the benefits conferred therein cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisions of the Act. In our view, even in a case where the special law does not exclude the prov .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Act. In the instant case, we find that Section 84 of the VAT Act made only Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act applicable to the proceedings under the VAT Act. The apparent legislative intent, which can be clearly evinced, is to exclude other provisions, including Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Section 29(2) stipulates that in the absence of any express provision in a special law, provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act would apply. If the intention of the legislature was 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

ections 4 to 24 of the said Act, applicable under the VAT Act thereby excluding the applicability of the other provisions. 18. Judgment in the case of Mangu Ram would not come to the aid of the appellant as the Court found that there was no provision under the Cr.P.C. from which legislative intent to exclude Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be discerned and, therefore, Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act was taken aid of. Similar situation prevailed in Anshuman Shukla's case. On the con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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