M/S. PATEL BROTHERS versus STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 04-01-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 1 S.C.R. 95 
MIS. PATEL BROTHERS 
v . 
. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.49-56of2017) 
JANUARY 04, 2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 1963 - s.5 - Applicability of - Delay in filing 
revision petition under special law - Condonation of - Delay in 
filing revision petitions in the High Court under VAT Act -
Condonation of delay sought uls.5 of Limitation Act - High Court 
dismissed the application for condonation of delay holding that 
provisions of s . .5 of Limitation Act are not applicable to a proceeding 
uls.81 of the VAT Act - On appeal, held: Applicability of the 
provisions of the Limitation Act, is to be judged ft"om the provisions 
of the special Act and not ft"om the terms of Limitation Act - s.84 of 
the VAT Act made only ss.4, 12 of the Limitation Act applicable to 
the proceedings under the VAT Act - Legislative intent is to exclude 
. other provisions, including s.5 of the Limitation Act - High Court 
was, therefore, right in dismissing the application seeking 
contlonation of delay - Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 -
ss. 79,80,81,84 - Limitation Act, 1963 - ss.4 to 24, 12, 29(2) -
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - s.8(5). 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The approach which is to be adopted by the Court 
is to examine the provisions of special law to arrive at a conclusion 
as to, whether there was legislative intent to exclude the operation 
of Limitation Act. In the instant case, section 84 of the VAT Act 
made only sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act applicable to 
the proceedings under the VAT Act. The apparent legislative 
intent, is to exclude other provisions, including' section 5 oTthe 
Limitation Act. Section 29(2) stipulates that in the absence of 
any express provision in a special law, provisions of sections 4 to 
24 of the Limitation Act would apply. If the intention of the 
legislature was to make section 5, or for that matter, other 
provisions of the Limitation Act applicable to the proceedings-
under the VAT Act, there was no necessity to make specific 
provision like section 84 thereby making only sections 4 and 12 
95 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
!-! 
96 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 
of the Limitation Act applicable to such proceedings, inasmuch 
as thes2 two Sections would also have become applie:ri)Ie by 
virtue of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. It is, thus, clear that 
the Legislature intended only sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation 
Act, out of sections 4 to 24 of the said Act, applicable under the 
VAT Act thereby excluding the applicability of the other 
provisions. [Para 17] [106-C-F] 
2. The scheme of VAT Act goes to show that it is a complete 
code not only laying down the fornm but also prescribing the time 
limit within which each forum would be competent to entertain 
the appeal or revision. The underlying object of the Act appears . 
to be not only to shorten tbe length of tbe proceedings initiated 
under the different provisions contained therein, but also to ensure 
finality of the decision made thereunder. The fact that the period 
of limitation described therein has been equally made applicable 
to the assessee as well as the revenue lends ample credence to 
such a conclusion. It is clear that the application of section-5 of 
the Limitation Act, 1963 to a proceeding under section 81(1) of 
the VAT Act stands excluded by necessary implication, by virtue 
of the language employed in section 84. [Para 18) [106-H; 107-
A-B) 
3 .. The court cannot interpret the law in such a manner so 
as to read into the Act an inherent power of condoning the delay 
by invoking section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 so as to 
supplement the provisions of the VAT Act which excludes the 
operation of section 5 by necessary implications. [Para 19) [107-
E) 
Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Am: 
(1976) 1 SCC 392 : [1976] 2 SCR 260; State of 
Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Anshwnan Shukla (2014) 
1i1 SCC 814: (2014] 11 SCR 361 -
distinguished. 
Kausha/ya Rani v. Gopal Singh [1964] 4 SCR 982; 
Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. La/it Nd~ain Mishra (1974) 
2 SCC 133: [1974] 3 SCR 31; Commissioner of 
Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private 
Limited & Am: (2009) 5 SCC 791 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
H 
[1976) 2 SCR 260 
distinguished 
Para9 
M/S. PATEL BROTHERS v. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. 
··-J 
[1964] 4 SCR 982 
referred 
Para 9 
[2014] 11 SCR 361 
distinguished 
Para 10 
[ 197 4] 3 SCR 31
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.