ARUN MISHRA, J. - (1.) The question involved is whether the High Court while exercising Signature Not Verified revisional power under Section 48 Added Tax Act, 2005 ( "the Act of 2005", condone the delay in case a revision under Section 48 of the Act of 2005, is filed beyond 90 days from the date of communication of the order or it excludes the applicability of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and in consequence of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(2.) The High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.11.2018, has refused to condone the delay in the revision filed under Section 48 read with Section 64(5) of the Act of 2005, against the order passed by Himachal Pradesh Tax Tribunal. The Division Bench of the High Court relying upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench in CMP(M) No.1371 of 2017 titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others v. Tritronics India Private Limited, has held that provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, cannot be applied and the High Court cannot condone the delay. The revision has to be filed within 90 days, as provided in Section 48 of the Act of 2005.
(3.) The provisions contained in Section 48 of the Act of 2005, relating to the revisional power of the High Court, read as under: "48. Revision to High Court. ­ (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the tribunal under sub ­section (2) of section 45 or under sub ­section (3) of section 46, may, within 90 days of the communication of such order, apply to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh for revision of such order if it involves any question of law arising out of erroneous decision of law or failure to decide a question of law. (2) The application for revision under sub ­section (1) shall precisely state the question of law involved in the order, and it shall be competent for the High Court to formulate the question of law. (3) Where an application under this section is pending, the High Court may, or on application, in this behalf, stay recovery of any disputed amount of tax, penalty or interest payable or refund of any amount due under the order sought to be revised: Provided that no order for stay of recovery of such disputed amount shall remain in force for more than 30 days unless the applicant furnishes adequate security to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority concerned. (4) The application for revision under sub ­section (1) or the application for stay under sub ­section (3) shall be heard and decided by a bench consisting of not less than two judges. (5) No order shall be passed under this section which adversely affects any person unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. " ;