Back
2018 Supreme(SC) 1592
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi, Navin Sinha, JJ.
Viraj Profiles Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Addl Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Mumbai - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6879 of 2018 (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5984 of 2018)
Decided On : 24-07-2018
Mr. Vinayak P. Patkar, Advocate Mr. Ishaan V. Patkar, Advocate, Mr. Shashank S. Dhond, Advocate and Mr. S. Ravi Shankar, AOR., for the Petitioner; Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate and Ms. Suvarna Ganu, Advocate and Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR., for the Respondent
The main legal point established is that the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 does not confer any power of condoning the delay in filing an appeal under Section 27, and the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are expressly excluded.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act - The court held that the provisions of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 do not confer any power of condoning the delay, and the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will have no application.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal challenged the order of the High Court of Bombay which condoned a delay of 134 days in filing an appeal under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of the Act, 2002 do not provide for condonation of delay, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is expressly excluded by Section 80 of the Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the power of condoning the delay in filing an appeal under Section 27 of the Act, 2002 and the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the recent pronouncement in Patel Brothers Vs. State of Assam and Others, (2017) 2 SCC 350, which held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are excluded by necessary implication when other provisions of the relevant tax act make the provisions of Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act applicable.
Final Decision: The court set aside the High Court's order condoning the delay and allowed the appeal.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The Challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 31 st January, 2017 passed by the High Court of Bombay by which delay of 134 days in filing Maharashtra Value Added Tax Appeal (L) No.42 of 2016 under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (for short, "the Act, 2002") has been condoned.
3. Contending that the provisions of the Act, 2002 do not confer any power of condoning the delay and the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will have no application, this appeal has been filed by the assessee.4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Section 27 of the Act, 2002 provides a limitation of 120 days, with effect from the date of the Order appeal against, for filing an appeal to the High Court. No power of condonation of any delay that may have occurred is provided for under the Act. Section 80 of the Act, 2002, however, provides that in computing the period of limitation laid down under Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Act, 2002 the provisions of Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, so far as may be, apply. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is expressly excluded by Section 80 of the Act.
6. In a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of Patel Brothers Vs. State of Assam and Others, (2017) 2 SCC 350 the applicability of provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to appeals filed Under Section 81 of the Assam Value added Tax of 2003 had been considered. It was held in Patel Brothers (supra) that having regard to the provisions of Section 84 of the VAT Act, which makes the provisions of Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act applicable, by necessary implication, Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded.
7. In view of the above, the order of the High Court condoning the delay in filing the appeal filed by the respondent-herein under Section 27 of the Act, 2002 must be held to be legally infirm. We, therefore, set aside the Order of the High Court and allow the appeal.
