SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER/ DEHAR POWER HOUSE CIRCLE BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD (PW) SLAPPER & ANOTHER versus EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, SUNDER NAGAR/ ASSESSING AUTHORITY

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 534 · Decided: 25-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
534
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER/ DEHAR POWER HOUSE
CIRCLE BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD (PW)
SLAPPER & ANOTHER
v.
EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, SUNDER NAGAR/
ASSESSING AUTHORITY
(Civil Appeal No. 8276–8277 of 2019)
OCTOBER 25, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, M. R. SHAH AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005: s. 48 – Exercise of
revisional power u/s. 48 by the High Court – Condonation of delay
in case a revision is filed beyond 90 days from the date of
communication of the order – Applicability of ss. 5, 29 of the
Limitation Act – Division Bench held that provision of s. 5 of the
Limitation Act cannot be applied and the High Court cannot condone
the delay – Sustainability of – Held: Held: Not sustainable – As the
revision under the Act of 2005 lies to the High Court, the provisions
of s. 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable, and there is no express
exclusion of the provisions of s. 5 and as per s. 29(2), unless a
special law expressly excludes the provision, ss. 4 to 24 of the
Limitation Act are applicable – Thus, provisions of s. 5 are applicable
to revisional provision u/s. 48 as they are not expressly excluded by
the provisions under the Act of 2005 - Delay in filing of revision
condoned – Limitation Act, 1963 – ss. 5, 29.
Remitting the matter to the High Court, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The provisions contained in Section 29 of the
Limitation Act deals with savings. The provisions in respect to
the limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by
any special or local law, is different from the period prescribed by
the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply if the Schedule
prescribed such period. The provisions contained in Sections 4
to 24 shall apply only in so far as and to the extent to which they
are not expressly excluded. Section 5 of the Limitation Act deals
with the extension of the prescribed period in particular
exigencies. The provision applies to the Court and is excluded
   [2019] 13 S.C.R. 534
534
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
535
in the application to the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).  It provides that if the Court is
satisfied that the appellant/applicant had sufficient cause for not
preferring the appeal or making the application within limitation,
the Court may admit the same after the prescribed period.
Explanation attached to Section 5 makes it clear that in case the
appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice, or
judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the
prescribed period, may be sufficient cause within the meaning of
Section 5. [Para 5, 6] [540-E; 541-A-B]
1.2 The provisions contained in section 45 of the Himachal
Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 provides for an appeal from
every original order passed under the Act or the Rules made
thereunder. Sub–section (4) of section 45 provides appeal to be
filed within 60 days, or such more extended period as the appellate
authority may allow, for reasons to be recorded in writing. Thus,
because of the provisions contained in section 45(4), the principles
of section 5 would apply to an appeal before the appellate authority,
which otherwise in the absence of specific provision would not
have applied to authority. The revision is provided to the
Commissioner suo motu under the provisions of section 46(1),
and the period provided is 5 years for suo motu exercise of
revisional power. However, the tribunal has the power to entertain
application within 60 days from the date of communication of the
order. When the provisions of section 48 are considered, revision
is provided to the High Court, and an aggrieved person may within
90 days of the communication of such order, file a revision. Section
48(1) nowhere expressly excludes the applicability of provisions
of the Limitation Act. The provisions of section 5 are applicable
to Section 48 as they are not expressly excluded by the provisions
under the Act of 2005. More so, in view of the provisions in
section 45(4), which makes provisions to condone the delay like
the Limitation Act, conferring power upon an authority also to
condone delay.  Further, suo motu revision has also been provided
under section 46.  In section 48, there is no express exclusion.
Because of the scheme of the Act, it cannot be inferred that by
implication, the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act are
SUPERINTENDING ENGR./ DPHCBB MNGMT BOARD (PW) SLAPPER v.
ETO, SUNDER NAGAR/ASSESSING A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.