Court emphasizes adherence to binding precedents in dismissing Revenue's application for condonation of delay in Sales Tax Application filing.

The Court dismissed the Revenue's application seeking condonation of a 90-day delay in filing the Sales Tax Application, emphasizing the importance of adhering to binding precedents. It held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to applications under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, in line with established judicial discipline. The Court's decision was based on the precedent set in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Mumbai vs. N.H. Polymers, reinforcing that specific limitation periods in special statutes exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the Sales Tax Application.
2. Jurisdiction under Section 61(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
3. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
4. Judicial discipline and binding precedents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Sales Tax Application:
The Revenue sought condonation of a 90-day delay in filing the Sales Tax Application. The application was initially filed directly before the High Court, which was not the proper remedy. The correct procedure was to invoke the Court's jurisdiction under Section 61(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Revenue argued that important questions of law required answers and that the delay should not prevent the Court from considering them.

2. Jurisdiction Under Section 61(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959:
Section 61 of the Act allows for referring questions of law to the High Court. The application must be made within 90 days from the date of the Tribunal's order. If the Tribunal refuses to state the case, the applicant can apply to the High Court within 90 days of such refusal. The High Court can require the Tribunal to state the case if it is not satisfied with the Tribunal's decision.

3. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The Revenue contended that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for condonation of delay, should apply. However, the Court referred to the precedent set in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Mumbai vs. N.H. Polymers, which held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to applications under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was to exclude the applicability of Section 5, as evidenced by a combined reading of Sections 59 and 60 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act.

4. Judicial Discipline and Binding Precedents:
The Court highlighted the importance of judicial discipline, stating that it must follow the binding precedent set by the Division Bench in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Mumbai vs. N.H. Polymers. The Revenue's attempt to challenge this precedent was discouraged. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of M.P. and Anr. vs. Anshuman Shukla, which reinforced the principle that special statutes with specific limitation periods exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that it had no power to condone the delay in filing the Sales Tax Applications, as per the binding precedent. The Notices of Motion were dismissed without any order as to costs.

---