Appeals Nos
1458 1459 of 1970
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 1st January 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in STR No 344 and STR No 347 of 1967
745 N D Karkhanis and 0
P Rana for the appellant
No appearance for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA J
The common question of law for determination in these appeals by special leave is  Whether section 142 of the Limitation Act in terms or in principle can be invoked for excluding the time spent in prosecuting an application under Rule 686 of the JP Sales Tax Rules for setting aside the order of dismissal of appeal in default under the UP Sales Tax Act 1948 for short the Sales Act from computation of the period of limitation for filing a revision under that Act It arises out of these circumstances
The respondent Ms Parson Tools and Plants hereinafter referred to as the assesse carries on business at Kanpur
The Sales tax Officer assessed tax for the assessment years 1958 1959 and 1959 60 on the assessee by two separate orders
The assessee filed appeals against those orders before the Appellate Authority
On May 10 1963 when the appeals came up for hearing the assessee was absent
The appeals were therefore dismissed in default by virtue of Rule 685 of the UP Sales tax Rules
Sub rule 6 of Rules 68 provided for setting aside such dismissal and re admission of the appeal
On the same day May 10 1963 the assessee made two applications in accordance with Sub rule 6 for setting aside the dismissal
During the pendency of those applications Sub rule 5 of Rule 68 was declared ultra vires the rule making authority by Manchanda J of the High Court who further held that the Appellate Authority could not dismiss an appeal in default but was bound to decide it on merits even though the appellant be absent
When these applications under Rule 686 came up for hearing on 20 10 1964 the Appellate Authority dismissed them outright in view of the ruling of Manchanda J Against the order of dismissal of his appeals the assessee on 16 12 1964 filed two revision petitions under section 10 of the Sales tax Act before the Revisional Authority Judge Revisions Sales tax
These revision petitions having been filed more than 18 months after the dismissal of the appeals which was the maximum period of limitation prescribed by sub  73 of s 10 were prima facie time barred
They were however accompanied by two applications in which the assessee prayed for exclusion of the time spent by him in prosecuting the abortive proceedings under Rule 686 for setting aside the dismissal of his appeals
The Revisional Authority found that the assessee had been pursuing his remedy under Rule 686 with due diligence and in good faith
It therefore excluded the time spent in those proceedings from computation of limitation by applying section 14 Limitation Act and in consequence held that the revision petitions were within time
On the motion of the Commissioner of Sales tax the Revisional Authority made two references under section 11 I of the Sales tax Act to the High Court for answering the following question of law  Whether under the circumstances of the case section 14 of the Limitation Act extended the period for filing 746 of the revisions by the time during which the restoration applications remained pending as being prosecuted bona fide
 The references were heard by a Full Bench of three learned Judges each of whom wrote a separate Judgment
Dwivedi J with whom Singh J agreed after reframing the question held that the time spent in prosecuting the application for setting aside the order of dismissal of appeals in default can be excluded from computing the period of limitation for filing the revision by the application of the principle underlying section 142
Limitation Act
 Hari Swarup J was of the opinion The Judge Revisions Sales tax while hearing the revisions under section 10 of the UP Sales Tax Act does not act as a Court but only as a revenue tribunal and hence the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act cannot apply to proceedings before him
If the Limitation Act does not apply then neither section 292 nor section 142 of the Limitation Act will apply to proceedings before him
 The learned Judge was further of the view that the principle of section 142 also could not be invoked to extend the time beyond the maximum fixed by the Legislature in sub section 3 B of section 10 of the Sales tax Act
Sub section 2 of section 14 Limitation Act runs thus In computing the period of limitation for any application the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceedings whether in a Court of first instance or of
appeal or revision against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature is unable to entertain it emphasis added
If will be seen that this sub section will apply only if 1 both the prior and subsequent proceedings are civil proceedings prosecuted by the same party 2 the proceedings had been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith 3 the failure of the prior proceedings was due to a defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature 4 both the proceedings are proceedings in a Court
Mr Karkhanis learned Counsel appearing for the appellant does not dispute the view taken by the High Court that the Proceedings in question under the Sales tax Act could be deemed as civil proceeding
Learned Counsel however contends that the authorities irrespective of whether they exercise original appellate or revisional 747 jurisdiction under the Sales tax Act are not Courts  within the  contemplation of section 142 of the Limitation Act
It is pointed out that his question stands concluded by this Court s decision in Jagannath Prasad vs State of UP1 Mr Karkhanis is right that this matter is no longer res Integra
In Shrimti Ujjam Bhai vs State of UP2 Hidayatullah J as he hen was speaking for the Court observed  The taxing authorities are instrumentalities of the State
They are not a part of the legislature nor are they a part of the judiciary
Their functions are the assessment and collection of taxes and in the process of assessing taxes they follow a pattern of action which is considered Judicial
They are not thereby converted into Courts of Civil judicature
They will remain the instrumentalities of the State and are within the definition of State in Article 12
 The above observations were quoted with approval by this Court Jagannath Prasad s case supra and it was held that a Sales tax officer under UP Sales tax Act 1948 was not a Court within the meaning of section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure although he is required to perform certain quasi judicial functions
The decision in jaganath Prasad s it seems as not brought to the notice of he High Court
In view of these pronocements of this Court here is no room for argument that the Appellent Authority and the judge Revisions Sales tax exercising jurisdiction under the Salestax Act are courts
 They are merely administrative Tribunals and not courts Section 14 Limitation Act therefore does not in terms apply to proceedings before such Tribunals
Further question that remains is  Is the general principle underlying section 14 2 applicable on grounds of Justice equity and good conscience for excluding the time spent in prosecuting the abortive applications under Rule 68 6 before the Appellate Authority for computing limitation for the purpose of revision applications
Mr Karkhanis maintains that the answer to this question also must be in the negative because definite indications are available in the scheme and language of the Sales tax Act which exclude the application of section 142 Limitation Act even in principle or by or by analogy
Learned Counsel further submits that the ratio of the Privy Council decision in Ramdute Ramkissen Dass vs E D Sesson  Cos relied upon by the majority judgment of the High is not applicable for computing limitation prescribed under the Sales tax Act
Reference in this connection has been made to Purshottam Dass Hassaram vs Impex India Lid4 wherein a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court explained the rule of decision in Ramdutt s case supra and found it to be inapplicable for the purpose of computing limitation for ap plications under the 
1  2 1963 1 SCR 778
3 AlR  4 AIR 1954 Bom 309 748 The material pail of s10 runs thus  3 i
The Revision Authority  may for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order made by any appellate or assessing authority under this Act in its discretion call for and examine either on its own motion or on the application of the Commissioner of gales tax or the person aggrieved the record of such order and pass such order as it may think fit
      3A  3B The application under sub section 3 shall be made within one year from the date of service of the order complained of but the Revising Authority may on proof of sufficient cause entertain an application within a further period of six months
 Three features of the scheme of the above provision are noteworthy
The first is that no limitation has been prescribed for the suo motu exercise of its jurisdiction by the Revising Authority
The second is that the period of one year prescribed as limitation for filing an application for revision by the aggrieved party is unusually long
The third is that the Revising Authority has no discretion to extend this period beyond a further period of six months even on sufficient cause shown
As rightly pointed out in the minority judgment of the High Court pendency of proceedings of the nature contemplated by section 142 of the Limitation Act may amount to a sufficient cause for condoning the delay and extending the limitation for filing a revision application but section 10 3 B of the Sales tax Act gives no jurisdiction to the Revising Authority to extend the limitation even in such a case for a further period of more than six months
The three star features of the scheme and language of the above provision unmistakably show that the legislature has deliberately excluded the application of the principles underlying sections 5 and
14 of the Limitation Act except to the extent and in the truncated form embodied in sub section
3 13 of section 10 of the Sales tax Act
Delay in disposal of revenue matters adversely affects the steady inflow of reve nues and the financial stability of the State
Section 10 is therefore designed to ensure speedy and final determination of fiscal matters within a reasonably certain time schedule
It cannot be said that by excluding the unrestricted application of the principles of sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act the Legislature has made
the provisions of section 10 unduly oppressive
In most cases the discretion to extend limitation on sufficient cause being shown for a further period of six months only given by sub section
 3_B would be enough to afford relief
Cases are no doubt conceivable where an aggrieved party despite sufficient cause is unable to make an 749 application for revision within this maximum period of 18 months
Such harsh cases would be rare
Even in such exceptional cases of extreme hardship the Revising Authoritly may on its own motion entertain revision and grant relief
Be that as it may from the scheme and language of section 1 0 the intention of the Legislature to exclude the unrestricted application of the principles of sections 5 and 10 of the Limitation Act is manifestly clear
These provisions of the Limitation Act which the Legislature did not after due application of mind incorporate in the Sales tax Act cannot be imported into it by analogy
An enactment being the will of the legislature the paramount rule of interpretation which overrides all others is that a statute is to be expounded according to the intent of them that made it
The will of the legislature is the supreme law of the land and demands perfect obdience1 Judicial power is never exercised said Marshall C J of the United States for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Judges always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Legislature or in other words to the will of the law
If the legislature wilfully omits to incorporate something of an analogous law in a subsequent statute or even if there is a casus omissus in a statute the language of which is otherwise plain and unambiguous the Court is not competent to supply the omission by engrafting on it or introducing in it under the guise of interpretation by analogy or implication something what it thinks to be a general principle of justice and equity
To do so would be entrenching upon the preserves of Legislatures The primary function of a court of law being jus dicere and not jus dare  In the light of what has been said above we are of the opinion that the High Court was in error in importing whole hog the principle of section 142 of the Limitation Act into section 10 3 B of the Sales tax Act
The ratio of the Privy Council decision in Ramdutt Ramkissen Dass vs E D Sasson  Co Supra relied upon by the High Court is not on speaking terms with the clear language of section 10 3 B of the Sales tax Act
That decision was rendered long before the passage of the Indian 
It lost its efficacy after the enactment of the which contained a specific provision in regard to exclusion of time from computation of limitation
The case in point is Purshottam Dass Hussaram vs Index India Ltd supra
In this Bombay case the question was whether the suit was barred by limitation
It was not disputed that Article 115 of the Limitation Act governed the limitation and if no other factor was to be taken into consideration the suit was filed beyond time
But what was relied upon by the plaintiff for the purpose of saving i see Maxwell on interpretation of statutes 11th Ednppl 2 and 25l 750 limitation was the fact that there were certain infructuous arbitration Proceedings and if the time taken in prosecuting those proceedings was eXcluded under section 14 the suit would be within limitation
It was held that if section 14 were to be construed strictly the plaintiff would not be entitled to exclude the period in question
On the authority of Ramdutt Ramkissen s case supra it was then contended that
the time taken in arbitration proceedings should be excluded on the analogy of section 14
This contention was also negatived on the ground that since the decision of the Privy Council the legislature had in section 375 of the  provided as to what extent the provisions of the Limitation Act would be applicable to the proceedings before the arbitrator
Section 375 was as follows  Where the cow orders that an award be set aside or orders after the commencement of an arbitration that the arbitration agreement shall cease to have effect with respect to the difference referred the period between the commencement of the arbitration and the date of the order of the Court shall be excluded in computing the time prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act 1908 for the commencement of the proceedings including arbitration with respect to the difference referred
 The reasons advanced the observations made and the rule enunciated by Chagla CJ who spoke for the Bench in that case are opposite and may be extracted with advantage   we have now a statutory provision for exclusion of time taken up in arbitration Pr when a suit Is filed and the question arises of computing the period of limitation with regard to that suit and the time that has got to be excluded is only that time which is taken up as provided in section 375
There must be an order of the Court setting aside an award or there must be an order of the Court declaring that the arbitration agreement shall cease to have effect and the period between the commencement of the arbitration and the date of this order is the period that has got to be excluded
it is therefore no longer open to the Court to rely on section 14 Limitation Act as applying by analogy to arbitration proceedings
If the Legislature intended that section 14 should apply and
that all the time taken up in arbitration proceedings should be excluded then there was no reason to enact section 375
 The very fact that section 375 has been enacted clearly shows that the whole period referred to in a 49 Limitation Act is not to be excluded but the limited  indicated in section 375
      751 it may seem rather curious and it may also in certain cases result in hardship as to why the legislature should not have excluded all time taken up in good faith before an arbitrator just as the time taken up in prosecuting a suit or an appeal in good faith is excluded
But obviously the Legislature did no t intend that parties should waste time infructuous proceedings before arbitrators
The Iegisla ture has clearly indicated that limitation having once begun to run no time could be excluded merely because parties chose to go before an arbitrator without getting an award or without coming to Court to get the necessary order indicated in section 375
 What the learned Chief Justice said about the inapplicability of section 14 Limitation Act in the context of section 375 of the  holds good with added force with reference to section 10 3 B of the Sales tax Act
Thus the principle that emerges is that if the legislature in a special statute prescribes a certain period of limitation for filing a particular application thereunder and provides in clear terms that such period on sufficient cause being shown may be extended in the maximum only upto a specified time limit and no further than the tribunal concerned has no jurisdiction to treat within limitation an application filed before it beyond such maximum time limk specified in the statute by excluding the time spent in prosecuting in good faith and due diligence any prior proceeding on the analogy of section 142 of the Limitation Act
We have said enough and we may say it again that where the legislature clearly declares its intent in the scheme and language of a statute it is the duty of the court to give full effect to the same without scanning its wisdom or policy and without engrafting adding or implying anything which is not congenial to or consistent with such expressed intent of the law giver more so if the statute is a taxing statute
We will close the discussion by recalling what Lord Hailsham 1 has said recently in regard to importation of the principles of natural justice into a statute which is a clear and complete Code by itself  It is true of course that the courts will lean heavily against any construction of a statute which would be manifestly fair
But they have no power to amend or supplement the language of a statute merely because in one view 1At P 11 in Pearl Berg vs Varty  752 of the matter a subject feels himself entitled to a larger degree of say in the making of a decision than a statute accords him
Still less is it the functioning of the courts to form first a judgment on the fairness of an Act of Parliament and theft to amend or supplement it with new provisions so as to make it conform to that judgment
 For all the reasons aforesaid we are of the opinion that the object the scheme and language of s10 of the Sales tax Act do not permit the invocation of s142 of the Limitation Act either in terms or in principle for excluding the time spent in prosecuting proceedings for setting aside the dismissal of appeals in default from com putation of the period of limitation prescribed for filing a revision under the Sales tax
Accordingly we answer the question referred in the negative
In the result we set aside the judgment of the High Court and accept these appeals
Since the appeals have been heard ex parte there will be no order as to costs


Summary:
The Sales Tax Officer assessed tax for the assessment years 1958 1959 and 1959 60 on the respondent assessee by two separate orders
The assessee filed appeals against those orders before the Appellate Authority
On May 10 1963 when the appeals came up for hearing the assessee was absent
The appeals were therefore
dismissed in default by virtue of Rule 685 of the UP Sates tax Rules
Sub rule 6 of Rule 68
provided for setting aside such dismissal and for re admission of the appeal
On the same day May 10 1963 the assessee made two applications in accordance with Sub rule 6 for setting aside the dismissal
During the pendency of those applications Subrule 5 of Rule 68 was declared ultra vires the rule making authority by Manchanda J of the High Court who further held that the Appellate Authority could not dismiss an appeal in default but was bound to decide it on merits even though the appellant be absent
When these applications under r 686 came up for hearing
on 20 10 64 the Appellate Authority dismissed them outright in view of the ruling of Manchanda J Against the order of dismissal of his appeals the assesees on 16 12 1964 filed two revision petitions under section 10 of the Sales tax Act before the Judge Revisions Sales tax
These revisions petitions having been filed more than 18 months after the dismissed of the appeals which was the maximum period of limitation prescribed by sub section
3 of section 10 were prima facie time barred
They were however accompanied by two application s in which the assessee prayed for exclusion of the time spent by him in prosecuting the abortive proceedings under r 686 for setting aside the dismissal of his appeals
The Revisional Authority found that the assessee had been pursuing his remedy under r 686 with due diligence and in good faith
It therefore excluded the time spent in those proceedings from computation of limitation by applying section 14 Limitation Act and in consequence held that the revision petitions were within time
On the motion of the Commissioner of Sales tax
the Judge Revisions Sales ax made two references under section 111 of the Sales_tax Act to the High Court for answering the following question of law Whether under the Circumstances of the case section 14 of the Limitation Act extended the period for filing of the revisions by the time during which the restoration applications remained pending as being prosecuted bona fid
 The references were heard by a Full Bench of three learned Judges each of whom wrote a separate Judgment
Dwivedi J with whom Singh J agree utter refraining the question held that the time spent in prosecuting the application for setting aside the order of dismissal of appeals in default can be 744 excluded from computing the period of limitation for filing the revision by the application of the principle underlying section 142 Limitation Act
 Hari Swarup J was of the opinion  The Judge Revisions Sales tax while hearing the revisions under section 10 of the UP Sales Tax Act does not act as a Court but only as a revenue tribunal and hence the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act cannot apply to proceedings before him
If the Limitation Act does not apply then neither section 292 nor is 142 of the Limitation Act will apply to proceedings before him The learned Judge was further of the view that the principle of section 142 also could not be invoked to extend the time beyond the maximum fixed by the Legislature in sub section 3 B of section 10 of the Sales tax Act
These appeals have been preferred on the basis of the special leave granted by this court
Allowing the appeals HELD  i If the legislature wilfully omits to incorporate something of an analogous law in a subsequent statute or even if there is a casus omissus in a statute the language of which is otherwise plain and unambiguous the Court is not competent to supply the omission by engrafting on it or introducing in it under the guise of interpretation by analogy or implication something what it thinks to be
a general principle of justice and equity
To do so would be entrenching upon the preserves of Legislature the primary function of a court of law being jus dicere and not jus dare
749D E ii If the  legislature in a special statute prescribes a certain period of limitation for filing a particular application thereunder and provides in clear terms that such period on sufficient cause being shown may be extended in the maximum only upto a specified time limit and no further then the tribunal concerned has no jurisdiction to treat within limitation an application filed before it beyond such maximum time limit specified in the statute by excluding the time spent in prosecuting in good faith and due diligence any prior proceeding on the analogy of section 142 of the Limitation Act
751D E Ramdutt Ramkissen Dass vs E D Sesson  Co AIR 1929 PC 103 and Purshottam Dass Hassaram vs Impex India Ltd AIR 1954 Bom
309 referred to
iii In view of the pronouncements of this Court in Shrimati Ujjani Bhai vs State of UP and jagannath Prasad vs State of UP   there is no room for argument that the Appellate Authority and the Judge Revisions exencising jurisdiction under the UP Sales Tax Act 1948 are Courts 
They are merely administrative Tribunals and not courts
Section 14 Limitation Act therefore does not in terms apply to proceedings before such Tribunals
747E iv Three features of the scheme of provisions of section 103i and section 103B are noteworthy
The first is that no limitation has been prescribed for the suo matu exercise of its jurisdiction by the Revising Authority
The second is that the period of one year prescribed as limitation for filing an application for revision by the aggrieved party is unusually long
The third is that the Revising Authority has no discretion to extend this period beyond a further period of six months even on sufficient cause shown
The three stark features of the scheme and language of these provisions unmistakably show that the legislature has deliberately excluded the application of the principles of Ss 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act
except to the extent and in the truncated form embodied in sub section
3 B of section 10 of the Act
748D F