LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to revision petitions filed in the High Court under Section 81 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
CASE TYPE: Tax Law
Case Name: M/S Patel Brothers vs. State of Assam and Ors.
Judgment Date: 04 January 2017
Date of the Judgment: 04 January 2017
Citation: (2017) INSC 12
Judges: A.K. Sikri, J. and Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. The judgment was authored by A.K. Sikri, J.
Can the delay in filing a revision petition under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, be condoned by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent judgment. The core issue was whether the specific provisions of the Assam VAT Act exclude the general applicability of the Limitation Act, particularly concerning the condonation of delay. This case clarifies the interplay between special laws and the Limitation Act.
Case Background
The appellant, M/S Patel Brothers, was a registered dealer engaged in the business of purchasing tea under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, the VAT Act, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The appellant submitted declarations in Form ‘C’ for the years 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, and 2001-2002, reflecting the value of sales. Initially, the Superintendent of Tax granted full exemption of sales tax under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. However, this information was later found to be false.
Consequently, on 29 June 2004, the Superintendent of Tax reduced the exemption for the year 1998-99 and imposed a penalty. Similar re-assessment orders were passed for other assessment years. Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeals before the Appellate Authority, along with stay applications. On 29 July 2005, the Appellate Authority directed the appellant to deposit 25% of the demanded dues within 30 days and stayed the rest.
The appellant then appealed to the Assam Board of Revenue/Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 29 July 2005, which was dismissed on 26 August 2008. A review application against this order was also dismissed on 27 August 2013. Following this, the appellant filed Revision Petitions under Section 81(1) of the VAT Act in the High Court with a delay of 335 days.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-2002 | Appellant submitted Form ‘C’ declarations for sales. |
| 29 June 2004 | Superintendent of Tax reduced exemption and imposed penalty. |
| 29 July 2005 | Appellate Authority directed 25% deposit and stayed the rest. |
| 26 August 2008 | Assam Board of Revenue/Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal. |
| 27 August 2013 | Appellate Tribunal dismissed the review application. |
| After 27 August 2013 | Appellant filed Revision Petitions in the High Court with 335 days delay. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant initially filed appeals before the Appellate Authority against the re-assessment orders. The Appellate Authority directed a partial deposit. Subsequently, the appellant’s appeals before the Assam Board of Revenue/Appellate Tribunal were dismissed. The High Court dismissed the applications for condonation of delay in filing the revision petitions, holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to revision petitions under Section 81 of the VAT Act. The High Court based its decision on Section 84 of the VAT Act, which specifically applies Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, implying the exclusion of other provisions, including Section 5.
Legal Framework
The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 81 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and its interaction with the Limitation Act, 1963.
✓ Section 81 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003: This section allows a dealer or person dissatisfied with the decision of the Appellate Tribunal to file a revision petition in the High Court within 60 days of being notified of the decision.
“81. Revision to High Court : (1) Any dealer or other person, who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, or the Commissioner may, within sixty days after being notified of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, file a revision to the High Court, and the dealer or other person so appealing shall serve a copy of the notice of revision on the respondents to the proceedings.”
✓ Section 84 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003: This section specifies that only Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, apply to the computation of the limitation period under the VAT Act.
“84. Application of Section 4 and 12 of Limitation Act, 1963 : In computing the period of limitation under this chapter, the provisions of Section 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall, so far as may be, apply.”
✓ Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963: This section allows for the condonation of delay in filing appeals or applications if the applicant shows sufficient cause.
✓ Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963: This section states that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply to any suit, appeal, or application under any special or local law, unless these provisions are expressly excluded by such special or local law.
“29(2). Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.”
The legal framework is further complicated by the fact that the Assam VAT Act, 2003, provides specific provisions for condonation of delay in appeals to the Appellate Authority (Section 79) and the Appellate Tribunal (Section 80), but not for revisions to the High Court under Section 81.
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions:
- The appellant argued that the High Court’s approach was flawed by not considering other provisions of the VAT Act and Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963.
- The appellant highlighted that Sections 79 and 80 of the VAT Act provide specific powers to condone delays in filing appeals, but Section 81 lacks such a provision. This absence, according to the appellant, implies that the general provisions of the Limitation Act, including Section 5, should apply.
- The appellant contended that Section 84 of the VAT Act, which makes Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act applicable, does not exclude the other provisions of the Limitation Act, especially Section 5.
- The appellant relied on Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, arguing that unless a special law expressly excludes the applicability of Sections 4 to 24, they should apply. Since the VAT Act does not expressly exclude Section 5, it should be applicable to revision petitions under Section 81.
- The appellant cited the case of Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr., where the Supreme Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies unless expressly excluded by the special law.
- The appellant also cited State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Anshuman Shukla, where it was held that the Limitation Act would apply to revision petitions if there was no express exclusion in the special law.
Respondent’s Submissions:
- The respondent argued that the High Court correctly interpreted the provisions of the VAT Act.
- The respondent contended that Section 84 of the VAT Act, by specifically applying Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, implicitly excludes other provisions, including Section 5.
- The respondent relied on the principle established in Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, which states that the court must examine the scheme of the special law to determine if the legislative intent was to exclude the operation of the Limitation Act, even without an express exclusion.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | Respondent’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for determination:
- Whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, are applicable to revision petitions filed in the High Court under Section 81 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to revision petitions under Section 81 of the VAT Act? | No. | Section 84 of the VAT Act specifically applies Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, implying the exclusion of Section 5. The legislative intent, as seen in the scheme of the VAT Act, is to exclude the application of Section 5. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. [ (1976) 1 SCC 392 ] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished. The Court held that there was no provision under the Cr.P.C. from which legislative intent to exclude Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be discerned. | Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act when not expressly excluded by special law. |
| State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Anshuman Shukla [ (2014) 10 SCC 814 ] | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished. The Court held that there was no express rider on the power of the High Court to entertain applications for revision after the expiry of the prescribed limitation. | Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the absence of express exclusion. |
| Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra [ (1974) 2 SCC 133 ] | Supreme Court of India | Followed. The Court held that even without an express exclusion, the scheme of a special law can imply the exclusion of the Limitation Act. | Legislative intent to exclude the Limitation Act even without express exclusion. |
| Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited & Anr. [ (2009) 5 SCC 791 ] | Supreme Court of India | Followed. The Court held that the High Court did not have the power to condone the delay in the absence of an express provision. | Power of the High Court to condone delay in the absence of an express provision. |
| Section 81 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 | Assam Legislature | Considered. This section provides for revision to High Court within 60 days. | Limitation period for filing revision petitions in the High Court. |
| Section 84 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 | Assam Legislature | Considered. This section applies Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act to the computation of limitation period. | Application of specific sections of the Limitation Act to the VAT Act. |
| Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 | Parliament of India | Considered. This section allows for condonation of delay. | Condonation of delay in filing appeals or applications. |
| Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 | Parliament of India | Considered. This section makes Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act applicable unless expressly excluded. | Applicability of Limitation Act provisions to special laws. |
| Section 79 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 | Assam Legislature | Considered. This section provides for appeals to the Appellate Authority with a condonation of delay provision. | Appeals to the Appellate Authority and condonation of delay. |
| Section 80 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 | Assam Legislature | Considered. This section provides for appeals to the Appellate Tribunal with a condonation of delay provision. | Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal and condonation of delay. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s argument that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies due to the absence of an express exclusion in the VAT Act. | Rejected. The Court held that Section 84 of the VAT Act, by specifically applying Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, implicitly excludes other provisions, including Section 5. |
| Appellant’s reliance on Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. | Rejected. The Court found that the legislative intent, as evidenced by Section 84 of the VAT Act, was to exclude the application of other provisions of the Limitation Act. |
| Appellant’s reliance on the judgments in Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. and State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Anshuman Shukla. | Distinguished. The Court found that in those cases, there was no provision from which the legislative intent to exclude Section 5 could be discerned, unlike in the present case. |
| Respondent’s argument that Section 84 of the VAT Act excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. | Accepted. The Court agreed that Section 84, by specifically applying Sections 4 and 12, implicitly excludes other provisions. |
| Respondent’s reliance on the principle in Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra. | Accepted. The Court applied the principle that the scheme of a special law can imply the exclusion of the Limitation Act, even without express exclusion. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ The Supreme Court distinguished Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr. [(1976) 1 SCC 392], stating that unlike the present case, there was no provision from which a legislative intent to exclude Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be discerned.
✓ The Supreme Court also distinguished State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Anshuman Shukla [(2014) 10 SCC 814], noting that the unamended Section 19 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, did not contain any express rider on the power of the High Court.
✓ The Supreme Court followed Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra [(1974) 2 SCC 133], emphasizing that the scheme of a special law can imply the exclusion of the Limitation Act, even without express exclusion.
✓ The Supreme Court relied on Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited & Anr. [(2009) 5 SCC 791], which held that the High Court did not have the power to condone the delay in the absence of an express provision.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the specific legislative intent of the Assam VAT Act, 2003, as evident from its provisions. The Court noted that the Act provides specific provisions for condonation of delay in appeals to the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Tribunal, but not for revisions to the High Court. This selective inclusion, along with Section 84 of the VAT Act, which explicitly applies only Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, indicated a clear legislative intent to exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court also emphasized the need to interpret statutes as they are written, without reading into them powers that are not explicitly provided.
The Court was also guided by the principle that special laws are complete codes in themselves, and their provisions should be interpreted in a way that ensures finality and efficiency. The fact that the limitation periods apply equally to the assessee and the revenue further supported the Court’s conclusion that the legislative intent was to shorten proceedings and ensure finality.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Legislative Intent of the VAT Act | 40% |
| Specific Inclusion of Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act | 30% |
| Principle of Special Laws as Complete Codes | 20% |
| Need for Finality and Efficiency | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Does Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply to revisions under Section 81 of the VAT Act?
Examine Section 84 of the VAT Act: It specifically applies Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act.
Consider the principle in Hukumdev Narain Yadav: The scheme of a special law can imply exclusion of the Limitation Act.
Analyze the scheme of the VAT Act: It provides specific condonation powers for appeals but not revisions.
Conclusion: Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded by necessary implication.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s interpretation was correct. The Court emphasized that Section 84 of the VAT Act, by specifically applying Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, implicitly excludes other provisions, including Section 5. The Court stated that the legislative intent, as evidenced by the scheme of the VAT Act, was to exclude the application of Section 5 to revision petitions under Section 81.
The Court also noted that the VAT Act is a complete code that not only lays down the forum but also prescribes the time limit within which each forum is competent to entertain appeals or revisions. This, the Court stated, indicates that the underlying object of the Act is to shorten the length of the proceedings and ensure finality of the decisions made.
The Supreme Court held 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 of the VAT Act.
The court observed:
“The apparent legislative intent, which can be clearly evinced, is to exclude other provisions, including Section 5 of the Limitation Act.”
The court further stated:
“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 of the Limitation Act applicable to such proceedings…”
The court also observed:
“We, therefore, unhesitantly hold 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.”
Key Takeaways
- Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the condonation of delay, does not apply to revision petitions filed in the High Court under Section 81 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
- When a special law specifies the applicability of certain provisions of the Limitation Act, it implicitly excludes the other provisions of the Limitation Act.
- Courts must interpret statutes based on their explicit provisions and legislative intent, without reading into them powers that are not explicitly provided.
- Special laws are often considered complete codes, and their provisions should be interpreted to ensure finality and efficiency.
- The legislative intent to exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be inferred from the scheme of the special law, even without express exclusion.
- This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the prescribed limitation periods under special laws, particularly in tax matters.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a special law, such as the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, specifically applies certain sections of the Limitation Act, 1963, it implicitly excludes the application of other sections, including Section 5, unless expressly provided otherwise. This clarifies the principle that special laws can act as complete codes, and their provisions must be interpreted based on legislative intent. This judgment reinforces the principle that the scheme of a special law can imply the exclusion of the Limitation Act, even without express exclusion, as established in Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court’s decision that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to revision petitions filed under Section 81 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The Court held that Section 84 of the VAT Act, by specifically applying Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, implicitly excludes other provisions, including Section 5. This judgment reinforces the principle that special laws are often complete codes, and their provisions should be interpreted based on their explicit terms and legislative intent.
Category
Parent category: Tax Law
Child categories: Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003; Section 81, Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003; Limitation Act, 1963; Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963; Section 29, Limitation Act, 1963
FAQ
Q: Does the Limitation Act apply to tax revision petitions?
A: It depends on the specific tax law. In the case of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the Supreme Court has clarified that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to revision petitions filed under Section 81 of the VAT Act.
Q: What is Section 5 of the Limitation Act?
A: Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allows for the condonation of delay in filing appeals or applications if the applicant can show sufficient cause for the delay.
Q: What is Section 81 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003?
A: Section 81 of the Assam VAT Act allows a dealer or person dissatisfied with the decision of the Appellate Tribunal to file a revision petition in the High Court within 60 days of being notified of the decision.
Q: Why was Section 5 of the Limitation Act not applied in this case?
A: The Supreme Court held that Section 84 of the Assam VAT Act specifically applies Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, thereby implicitly excluding other provisions, including Section 5.
Q: What does it mean for a special law to be a complete code?
A: It means that the special law is intended to be self-contained and govern all matters within its scope. In such cases, general laws like the Limitation Act may not apply unless specifically provided.
Q: What is the implication of this judgment for taxpayers?
A: Taxpayers must adhere strictly to the limitation periods prescribed under the Assam VAT Act, 2003, and cannot rely on Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delays in filing revision petitions under Section 81.