Special statute limitation excludes Section 5 condonation where the VAT Act prescribes revision period without extension power.

Section 48(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 prescribes a 90-day period for revision to the High Court and contains no express or implied power to extend time. Treating the Act as a complete code, the Court applied the principle that where a special statute fixes limitation without providing for condonation, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is excluded by necessary implication. General limitation law cannot be invoked to enlarge the special statutory period, and no inherent power can be read into the Act to condone delay in revision petitions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could entertain and condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in revision petitions filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 48(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Analysis: Section 48(1) prescribes a revision to the High Court within 90 days and contains no provision enabling condonation of delay. The Act was treated as a complete code governing the remedy, and the absence of any express or implied enabling provision showed legislative intent to exclude the operation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court relied on the principle that where a special statute fixes limitation and does not provide for extension, the general law of limitation cannot be invoked to supplement the special statute. The decisions on VAT and excise statutes were applied to hold that no inherent power can be read into the Act to enlarge the limitation period.

Conclusion: The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not maintainable and the High Court had no power to condone the delay in filing the revision petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute constitutes a complete code and prescribes a limitation period for revision without providing for condonation, Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded by necessary implication.

---