2018 (3) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Court was made by S. Manikumar, J ) Tax Case Revision Petition SR.No.87191 of 2005 has been filed against the order, made in S.T.A.No.221 of 2001, on the file of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Chennai, with a delay of 91 days. 2. Reasons assigned for condonation are that the date of receipt of the order was on 21/2/2003. The file was circulated to the Law Off....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cts to such order of the Joint Commissioner may prefer a petition to the High Court on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal has either decided erroneously or failed to decide any question of law:- Provided that the High Court may, within a further period of ninety days, admit a petition preferred after the expiration of the first mentioned period of ninety days aforesaid if it is satisf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... SC 1099}, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "In the language of Section 34 of 1996 Act, the crucial words are but not thereafter used in the proviso to sub-section (3). This phrase would amount to an express exclusion within the meaning of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, and would therefore bar the application of Section 5 of that Act. Parliament did not need to go fu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w to, in terms, exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act. It is sufficient if on a consideration of the language of its provisions relating to limitation, the intention to exclude can be necessarily implied." 9. In Union of India Vs. Popular Construction Co {(2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 470, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- "There is no dispute that the Arbitration and Con....