2019 (11) TMI 6 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Supreme Court clarifies time limit for tax revisions, empowers High Court to condone delays

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER/ DEHAR POWER HOUSE CIRCLE BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD (PW) SLAPPER & ANOTHER Versus EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, SUNDER NAGAR/ASSESSING AUTHORITY

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER/ DEHAR POWER HOUSE CIRCLE BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD (PW) SLAPPER & ANOTHER Versus EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, SUNDER ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the High Court can condone the delay in filing a revision under Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, beyond 90 days.2. Whether Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and consequently Section 5 of the Limitation Act, are applicable to revisions under Section 48 of the Act of 2005.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. High Court's Power to Condon the Delay Beyond 90 Days:The High Court, in its impugned judgment, refused to condone the delay in the revision filed under Section 48 read with Section 64(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, relying on a previous decision which held that the High Court cannot condone the delay as Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply. The High Court concluded that the revision must be filed within 90 days as stipulated in Section 48 of the Act of 2005.2. Applicability of Section 29 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act:The Supreme Court examined whether Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, which deals with the applicability of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act to special or local laws, applies to the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. Section 29(2) states that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act shall apply unless expressly excluded by the special or local law. The Court noted that Section 48 of the Act of 2005 does not expressly exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The Court referenced multiple precedents to support its interpretation, including:- Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra: The Court held that even if a special law does not expressly exclude Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, it is open to the Court to examine whether the scheme of the special law necessarily excludes their operation.- Sakuru v. Tanaji: The provisions of the Limitation Act apply only to proceedings in courts unless expressly provided otherwise in special statutes.- Lata Kamat v. Vilas: The Court held that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply unless expressly excluded by the special law.- State of W.B. v. Kartick Chandra Das: The Court held that in the absence of express exclusion, Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to special laws.- Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker: The Court held that if a special law does not expressly exclude the Limitation Act, then Section 5 applies.- Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi: The Court held that the provision of a period of limitation in peremptory language is not sufficient to displace the applicability of Section 5.The Supreme Court concluded that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply to revisions under Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, as there is no express exclusion. The Court noted that the scheme of the Act of 2005 does not imply exclusion of the Limitation Act. The Court thus held that the High Court has the power to condone the delay in filing revisions under Section 48 of the Act of 2005.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable to revisions under Section 48 of the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The cases were remitted to the High Court for examination on merits in accordance with the law.