https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461494 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461494 Condonation of delay in filing a review application - Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in view of Section 21 & 22 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, and Rule 17(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 - HELD THAT:- Since, the present issue is relating to condonation of delay in filing the review before the Tribunal, this Court finds that section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 relates to the power of a Central Administrative Tribunal to review its own decision. Therefore, as far as the power of the Administrative Tribunal to review its own decision is concerned, sufficient power has been vested as per the statute itself. Apparently, the extent of power to be exercised by the Tribunal can be well understood from the provision that the said power of review is to be found under the larger umbrella of section 22 (3) of the Act, 1985. The power of review vested with an Administrative Tribunal is equated to a Civil Court and, thus, while considering and disposing of any review application, the Administrative Tribunal is to follow the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, by necessary implications the provisions of review as found under the Civil procedure Code i.e Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code came to be incorporated along with the power of review of an Administrative Tribunal - the power of the Tribunal to review its judgment has been well explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa [1999 (11) TMI 861 - SUPREME COURT] and Gopalbandhu Biswal Vs Krishna Chandra Mohanty [1998 (4) TMI 550 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held review power of a Tribunal to be similar as has been granted to a Civil Court under Section 114 or under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. In any case, the power of review is not absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions indicated in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and the same can be exercised on the application of a person on restricted grounds of discovery of new and important matter; or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. Apparently, the Apex Court in the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Vs. Madan Lal Dan & Sons. Bareilly [1976 (9) TMI 135 - SUPREME COURT] has held that for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Section 12(2), inter alia, shall apply in so far as, and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law, and noted that there was nothing in the U.P. Sales Tax Act expressly excluding the application of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to a review Application field before the Administrative Tribunal as the provisions of limitation are not specifically barred by the Administrative Tribunal Act or the Rules framed therein. However, the Tribunal should exercise great caution while applying the said provision of the limitation Act, so as to balance between a right of a party to review the order on limited legally permissible grounds available to him and public policy which provides for finality of a lis between the parties - Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & others vs. Chitra Lekha Chakraborty [2008 (10) TMI 743 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Apex Court held that since there is a specific provision in Rule 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Rules for filing of Review applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Section 5 of Limitation Act was not applicable to a petition under Rule 17. Conclusion - This Court holds that an application for condonation of delay in Review Application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 is maintainable and accordingly, it is held that the Tribunal can condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, if it is satisfied that sufficient cause for not preferring an application within the time has been supplemented. The impugned order is quashed - petition allowed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530