9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present revision in this Court. The revision has been filed on August 18, 1987. Section 14-B(2) and section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), relevant for the purpose of deciding the present controversy are reproduced as under: "14-B. (1) .................. (2) The Tribunal shall send a copy of the order passed under this section to the dealer and to the Commissioner. 15.. (1) .................. (2) The Commissioner may, if he objects to any order made by the Tribunal under section 14-B, direct any Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer to apply to the High Court for revision of such order on the ground that the case involves a question of law. An applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner, but so far as the limitation is concerned, it must commence from the date the order is communicated to the Commercial Taxes Officer concerned. The period cannot be extended on account of any default or negligence of the Commercial Taxes Officer in not sending the order to the Commissioner for a long time. It is further argued that communication of the order of the Tribunal to the Commercial Taxes Officer concerned should be valid communication to the Commissioner as the revision itself is filed in the name of the Commercial Taxes Officer (C.T.O.). Mr. Singhal also pointed out that an application for revision to the High Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act lies in form S.T. 9-B as provided under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e copy of its order to the Commissioner and then the Commissioner would direct any Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer to file the revision. The language of sub-section (2) of section 15 is further clear and makes a mention that the application for revision shall be filed within 180 days of the date on which the order sought to be revised is communicated in writing to the Commissioner. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent did not refer or bring to the notice of the court any order of the Commissioner authorising the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jaipur, or Commercial Taxes Officer, Alwar, to accept the order of the Tribunal on behalf of the Commissioner for the purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of limitation prescribed in the Act itself. Thus, there is complete fallacy in the argument of Mr. Singhal that limitation should be counted from the date of communication of the order of the Tribunal to the petitioner who may be a Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer. If this argument of Mr. Singhal is accepted then it would result in great anomaly and would be rather against the provisions contained in section 14-B(2) of the Act. In a given case, the order of the Tribunal might be communicated on an earlier date to the Commissioner and come to the notice of the Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer after a very long time and in that case if the argument of Mr. Singhal is acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
