IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the product 'rusk' does not qualify for the VAT exemption applicable to bread in the State, and the High Court has the authority to entertain a petition for revision beyond the specified 60-day period.

JUDGMENT

1. The matter calls for a fresh consideration on rebound.

2. The petition for revision of an appellate order dated January 23, 2015 passed by the Meghalaya Board of Revenue was rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Such order of this Court of January 28, 2020 was set aside by the Supreme Court by its order of December 10, 2021 and the petition for revision along with the application for condonation of delay were restored to the board of this Court for being considered afresh.

3. The petitioner manufactures a product that is generically known as rusk. Rusk is a form of toasted bread that, unlike untoasted bread which is soft, is crunchy and it is consumed more as a biscuit than as bread or even toasted bread. Bread is exempted from value added tax in the State. The petitioner passed off its product as a form of bread and took advantage of the exemption. Upon the Department regarding rusk as different from bread and seeking to impose VAT under the miscellaneous entry which pertains to unspecified products, the petitioner challenged the same. At the end of the adjudication at three levels before the Department and the Board of Revenue, the petitioner failed to impress the authorities that rusk had to be treated as bread and permitted the exemption. Hence, the present revision.

4. By the judgment and order of January 28, 2020, this Court rejected the petition for revision without going into the merits thereof and solely on the ground that the revision had been carried to this Court beyond the time envisaged in Section 70 of the Meghalaya Value Added Tax Act, 2003. This Court held that since Section 70(1) of the said Act required a revision to be carried to the High Court "within sixty days after being notified of the decision" and the present petition for revision was instituted long thereafter, such petition could not be entertained as Section 70 of the Act has not conferred any authority on the High Court to condone the delay when a petition for revision is filed beyond the 60 days' stipulated period. Thus, the judgment of January 28, 2020 did not address the grounds urged by the petitioner to condone the delay and, as a consequence, did not enter into the merits of the matter as to whether the product rusk was liable to be treated as bread and extended the benefit of exemption from VAT that bread enjoys in the State.

5. As is evident from the previous discussion, it has first to be assessed whether Section 70 of the said Act permits this Court to entertain a petition for revision beyond the 60 days' period indicated in such provision. It is only upon the petitioner succeeding on such first issue will it be necessary to assess whether sufficient cause has been shown for not bringing the revision within the statutory time-limit. If the petitioner succeeds on both such counts, the merits of the matter may be gone into, to ascertain whether rusk and bread deserve the same treatment when it comes to VAT being charged or the exemption being extended.

6. On the first limb, pertaining to the authority to condone the delay and receive a petition for revision after 60 days of the petitioner being notified of the order under revision, the State has relied on Chapter VII of the said Act and referred to the provisions for appeal, review and revision contained therein. The fundamental submission of the State is that the said Act is the full repository of the law pertaining to VAT in the State, including the provisions for challenging any order passed there under; and, as such, for the purpose of any order pertaining to VAT or the challenge thereto, it is impermissible to refer to or rely upon any other statute as the said Act is a complete code by itself.

7. In the same vein, the State contends that when comparable provisions in the same statute, particularly covered under the same chapter, confer the authority on a relevant forum to condone the delay in receiving a matter and other provisions do not confer such authorit