1988 (8) TMI 400 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to entertain revision petitions under section 14 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.
2. Validity of directions given by the Board of Revenue in dismissing revision petitions.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to a revision under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, concerning the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66. The assessing authority had initially assessed the tax liability of the assessee, who then filed revision petitions before the Board of Revenue. However, these revision petitions were dismissed as not maintainable by the Board of Revenue, stating that the time taken in pursuing the revision petitions would not be considered for the period of limitation for filing appeals. The Division Bench of the Board of Revenue upheld this decision. Subsequently, questions were referred to the High Court regarding the permissibility of the Board of Revenue's directions. The Act was amended in 1984, and the reference was treated as a revision under section 15 of the Act.

The High Court emphasized that under the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act, a revision does not lie to the Board of Revenue when an appeal lies against the order under section 13. Citing precedent, the Court held that the Board of Revenue lacked jurisdiction to entertain revision applications if an appeal was available under section 13. Consequently, the revision petitions filed by the assessee were rightly dismissed as not maintainable by the Board of Revenue.

The Court found that the directions given by the Board of Revenue, including excluding the time spent on revision applications for calculating the period of limitation for appeals and continuing the stay order until appeal disposal, were beyond its jurisdiction. The Court ruled that such directions should have been determined by the appellate authority, not the Board of Revenue. As the revision petitions were dismissed due to lack of maintainability, any orders issued therein were without jurisdiction.

Ultimately, the High Court decided both questions in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. It held that the Board of Revenue was not permitted to order exclusion of time spent on revision applications for calculating the limitation period for appeals and could not direct the stay order to continue until appeal disposal. Consequently, the directions given by the Board of Revenue were set aside, and the revision was allowed with no order as to costs.