A significant legal case was recently decided by the Supreme Court of India regarding the High Court’s power to condone delays beyond 90 days in a revision filed under Section 48 of the Act of 2005. The impugned judgment dated 19.11.2018, which refused to condone the delay, has been set aside. The Court has remitted the cases to the High Court for a fresh examination on merits, emphasizing the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Stay tuned for more insights on this crucial ruling.
Issue
- Whether the High Court can condone the delay in a revision filed under Section 48 of the Act of 2005 beyond 90 days from the date of the order.
- Does the High Court exclude the applicability of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condoning the delay in the revision under Section 48 of the Act of 2005?
- Impugned judgment dated 19.11.2018 refused to condone the delay in the revision filed under Section 48 read with Section 64(5) of the Act of 2005 against the order passed by Himachal Pradesh Tax Tribunal.
Also Read: Supreme Court Ruling on Exemption of Excise Duties and Cess
Analysis
- Section 48 of the Act of 2005 addresses the revisional power of the High Court.
- The High Court, in a case, determined that Section 48(1) does not allow for the condonation of delay in filing revision, excluding the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
- The court also cannot use inherent powers to condone the delay.
- Provisions of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 were considered in this context.
- The provisions of Sections 81 and 84 of the VAT Act, along with Sections 5 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act, were reviewed.
- Section 84 of the VAT Act specifically impacts the application of the Limitation Act provisions.
- A case concerning the applicability of the Limitation Act to appeals under section 120 of the Customs Act was discussed.
- The discussion extended to cases involving condonation of delay in filing reference applications to the High Court under specific acts and sections.
- The decisions in various cases highlighted the exclusions, applicability, and implications of the Limitation Act provisions.
- The role of express versus implied exclusions of the Limitation Act was a key factor in the judgments.
- Several cases and their outcomes were cited to support the interpretation and application of Limitation Act provisions.
- The significance of legislative intent and specific language in statutes was emphasized in determining the applicability of the Limitation Act.
- The High Court’s authority to condone delays beyond specified periods was a central point of discussion in the analysis of various cases and laws.
- The decisions in different cases provided a nuanced understanding of the interplay between specific laws, provisions, and the Limitation Act.
- The provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act apply, and the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 are not excluded by the Hindu Marriage Act.
- Tribunal can entertain applications within 60 days from the communication of the order.
- Revision to the High Court is provided within 90 days of communication of the order.
- Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable if the Court finds sufficient cause for delay in appeal or application.
- Provisions of Section 5 apply to Section 48 as they are not expressly excluded by the Act of 2005.
- Section 45(4) of the Act of 2005 allows the application of Section 5 where it would not have applied otherwise.
- Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act deals with savings and prohibits condonation of delay beyond 180 days for revision under the Act of 2005.
- Provisions of Section 3 apply if the prescribed period in a special law differs from that in the Schedule.
- For suo motu revision under section 46, a 5-year period is provided.
- High Court is bound to dismiss an election petition not complying with specific provisions of the Representation of People Act.
- The scheme of the Himachal Pradesh VAT Act does not exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act, making Section 5 principles applicable.
- Central Excise Act is considered a complete code in itself.
- In the case of Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, it was observed that if a special law does not explicitly exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, the court can still assess how far the special law intends to exempt the operation of the Limitation Act.
- Provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act have not been ousted; they can be used to condone limitation under Section 48 of the Act of 2005.
- The Commissioner has suomotu revisional power within 5 years.
- The intention is not to exclude the Limitation Act.
- The court condoned the delay in the filing of revision.
- The decision of the High Court was deemed unsustainable.
Also Read: Protection of Wildlife Sanctuary: Importance of Environmental Conservation
Decision
- Impugned judgments and orders set aside
- Cases remitted to the High Court for examination on merits
- High Court to apply the law in accordance with Section 5 of the Limitation Act
- Section 5 of the Limitation Act deemed applicable to revisional provision under Section 48 of the Act of 2005
Also Read: Improvements and Rehabilitation at Shree Jagannath Temple: Supreme Court Judgement
Case Title: SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER/ DEHAR POWER HOUSE CIRCLE BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD (PW) SLAPPER Vs. EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, SUNDERNAGAR/ASSESSING AUTHORITY
Case Number: C.A. No.-008276-008277 / 2019
