Allowed

M/S Mishkat Agro Industries v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC1 Jul 2022SCA/15168/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat allowed a Special Civil Appeal, quashing an impugned communication rejecting the petitioner's application for electricity duty exemption solely due to limitation. The court relied on Apex Court directions excluding the lockdown period from limitation calculations and directed fresh consideration on merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed, the impugned communication dated 15.02.2021 was quashed and set aside, and the respondent was directed to decide the petitioner's application afresh within eight weeks.

M/S Mishkat Agro Industries Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

C/SCA/15168/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15168 of 2021

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

M/S MISHKAT AGRO INDUSTRIES

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

==========================================================

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR A A ZABUAWALA(6823) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR SAHIL B. TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2

¶11

==========================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

¶13

Date : 01/07/2022

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

Draft amendment is allowed in terms of the draft. The same shall be carried out forthwith.

¶16

At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Zabuawala, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 dated 08.03.2021, reported in AIR 2021 SC 2158, for extension of limitation since the petitioner was unable to file reply in the application under Rule 11A(1) of the Bombay Electricity (Gujarat) Rules, 1986, for exemption from the payment of electricity duty due to imposition of lockdown. He has further submitted that the petitioner has made an application on 10.07.2019 to the respondent No.2 and by the letter dated 26.02.2020 the respondent has informed the petitioner to submit the necessary documents within a period of 30 days and the said letter dated 26.02.2020, was received on 01/02.03.2020. He has submitted that thereafter, the petitioner was in process of collecting all the necessary

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

C/SCA/15168/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2022

¶19

documents to file reply, however due to COVID-19, lock-down was imposed in the entire territory of India, therefore the petitioner could not file the reply annexing the documents as asked for. It is submitted that on 31.05.2020 when the Government of Gujarat, partially lifted the lock-down, the petitioner has immediately sent his reply on 31.05.2020 along with necessary documents as per the letter dated 26.02.2020 to the respondent No.2, which was not accepted as the reply was not filed within the limitation period. He has placed reliance on the order of the Apex Court passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 dated 08.03.2021, reported in AIR 2021 SC 2158.

¶20

In the aforesaid order of the Apex Court, more particularly in paragraph No.2, the Apex Court has observed thus -

¶21

“2. We have considered the suggestions of the learned Attorney General for India regarding the future course of action. We deem it appropriate to issue the following directions: -

¶22

In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021.

¶23

In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

¶24

The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.

¶25

xxxx”

¶26

Page 2 of 3

¶27

C/SCA/15168/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2022

¶28

Thus, the limitation period of any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 was excluded by the Apex Court. The petitioner has submitted his reply on 31.05.2020.

¶29

It is not in dispute that during the lock-down period, the limitation for reply has expired and the petitioner was unable to file his reply in the application under Rule 11A(1) of the Bombay Electricity (Gujarat) Rules, 1986 for exemption from the payment of electricity duty. The application has been rejected only on the ground of non-furnishing the reply in the prescribed time limit.

¶30

In view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 15.02.2021 is quashed and set aside. The respondent shall decide the application of the petitioner afresh on merits, in accordance with law and shall communicate the appropriate order to the petitioner within a period of eight (08) weeks.

¶31

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)

¶32

MAHESH BHATI/60

¶33

Page 3 of 3

M/S Mishkat Agro Industries v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mishkat Agro Industries v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopiben Hiteshbhai Parmar Vs State of Gujarat

Prahladbhai Gangarambhai Patel Vs Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd.

Legal Heirs of Decd Gandaji Badaji Waghela, Shri Arvindji Gandaji Waghela Vs State of Gujarat

Prakashbhai Kalubhai Dangar Vs State of Gujarat

Sintex Plastics Technology Limited Vs Mahatva Plastic Products and Building Material Pvt. Ltd.

Jayrajsinh Rajendrasinh Jadeja Vs State of Gujarat