9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (1) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g slates from certain mines in the Kangra Valley. In the year 1951-52 they returned their taxable sales at a figure of Rs. 1,93,709-0-6 and claimed a deduction of Rs. 31,155 out of the same. The assessing authority did not rely on the accounts of the petitioners and added an amount of Rs. 2,49,966-10-0 to the returned taxable turnover, and completed assessment on that basis on the 18th February, 1953. The petitioners went up in appeal to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, who dismissed the same on the 7th October, 1953. A revision was then taken by them to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, who ultimately dismissed the same on the 30th March, 1955. The petitioners then went up in revision to the Financial Commissioner, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the order dismissing the petition for revision. After hearing the learned counsel at great length and giving our careful consideration to the entire matter we feel that there is no merit at all in the present petition. There can be no doubt that the remedy by way of revision is in the discretion of the revising authority and there is equally no doubt that the said discretion has to be exercised according to the rules of reason and justice, according to law and not humour, it is not to be an arbitrary, vague and fanciful one but legal and regular; it has to be exercised not capriciously but on judicial grounds and for substantial reasons. It has, however, been repeatedly held that the dismissal of a petition for revision on the ground o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e satisfied that the person making the petition for revision was not to blame for delay and his petition may be entertained on that short ground. In other cases where the delay is not satisfactorily explained, the revising authority may refuse to exercise its discretionary power of revision in favour of a person who files the belated petition. It is true that no particular period is prescribed in the Limitation Act within which a petition for revision must be filed, but the revising authorities are vested with discretion in the matter of entertaining such petitions and in suitable cases they are in their discretion entitled to refuse to entertain those which are filed after unreasonable delay. In support of his contention that there being n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 12(2) which right was free from any such restrictions under the section as it stood at the time of the commencement of assessment proceedings. In State of Madras v. Asher Textiles Ltd. [1959] 10 S.T.C. 584., section 12-B(4) was added to the Madras General Sales Tax Act and this gave a wider jurisdiction in the matter of entertainment of revisions. The question that arose for decision in that case was whether the petitioner could take advantage of the amended law which was not in force at the time of the commencement of the assessment proceedings and a Division Bench of the Madras High Court said that he could. Krishna v. M. P. GovernmentA.I.R. 1954 Nag. 151. was a case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A preliminary objectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
