HC while exercising Revisional Jurisdiction can Condone Delay Since No Exclusion of Application of Limitation Act is made by HP VAT: SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court in the case of Superintending Engineering v Excise and Taxation Officer held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable on High Court while exercising revisional power since there is no express exclusion of the Limitation Act by the provisions of HP VAT.

The issue involved in the present appeal was whether the High Court while exercising revisional power, condone the delay beyond 90 days from the date of communication of the order while excluding the applicability of Section 29 of the Limitation Act and in consequence of Section 5 (dealing with power to condone delay in filing) of the Limitation Act.

The High Court refused to condone the delay against the order passed by the HP Tax Tribunal and held that the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied and the High Court cannot condone the delay. The revision has to be filed within 90 days, as provided in Section 48 of the Act of 2005.

The Bench constituting of Justices Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah and B.R. Gavai held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable to the revisional provision under Section 48 of the Act of 2005.

The Court stated that as the revision under the Act of 2005 lies to the High Court, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable on the major reason that there is no express exclusion of the provisions of Section 5 and per se Section 29(2), unless a special law expressly excludes the provision, sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are applicable. The Court discussed that scheme of the HP VAT, 2005 to conclude that the same does not attract the application of the Limitation Act. However, also, the intent of the scheme of the HP VAT is not to exclude the application of the Limitation Act.