Special limitation law excludes Section 5 where the statute itself provides delay condonation for appellate proceedings.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to second appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal because section 20(4) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 itself governed condonation of delay and thereby excluded the general limitation provision under section 29(2). The right of appeal was treated as vested, and appellate proceedings as a continuation of the original assessment proceedings. As the assessments had been initiated and completed under the unamended provision, the 1967 amendment operated prospectively, so delay had to be examined under section 20(4) as it stood before the amendment. The matter was therefore to be reconsidered under the unamended special-law power to condone delay.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to second appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and whether the Tribunal had to consider condonation of delay under section 20(4) as it stood before the 1967 amendment.

Analysis: Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 makes sections 4 to 24 applicable to proceedings under a special or local law only to the extent they are not expressly excluded. The unamended section 20(4) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 itself conferred power on the appellate authority to entertain an appeal beyond sixty days for recorded reasons, which excluded the operation of section 5 of the Limitation Act. At the same time, the right of appeal was a vested right and the appellate proceedings were a continuation of the original assessment proceedings. Since the assessments were initiated and completed under the unamended provision and the 1967 amendment was prospective, the Tribunal had to examine the application for delay under the law as it stood when the proceedings commenced.

Conclusion: Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was not applicable, but the Tribunal was required to consider condonation under section 20(4) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 as it stood before the 1967 amendment.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that the general limitation provision could not govern the appeal, yet the matter had to be reconsidered under the unamended special-law power to condone delay, and the case was sent back to the Tribunal for that purpose.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute itself regulates limitation and confers a power of condonation, section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded, and a prospective amendment cannot take away the vested appellate remedy in proceedings already initiated under the earlier provision.

---