Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, particularly section 5 read with section 29(2), apply to appeals under section 19 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, so as to permit condonation of delay beyond the thirty-day extension prescribed in the proviso.
Analysis: Section 19 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, as amended, expressly restricts the appellate authority's power to admit delayed appeals to a further period of thirty days. The Act was held to be a self-contained code governing assessment, appeal, revision, limitation, and penalties, and the amendment was intended to curtail the earlier unlimited discretion to condone delay. Applying section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court held that even if the special law does not use express words of exclusion, the scheme, object, and language of the statute may still show that the Legislature intended to exclude the unrestricted operation of sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act. Importing section 5 of the Limitation Act would nullify the amended proviso and restore the very discretion that the Legislature had deliberately removed.
Conclusion: The Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply so as to enlarge the appellate authority's power beyond the thirty-day further period under section 19 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the refusal to condone delay was upheld.