9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the year 1965-66 was assessed. Instead of filing appeals against the said orders of assessment, the assessee filed revision petitions before the Board of Revenue under section 14 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The said revision petitions of the assessee were dismissed as not maintainable by the learned single Member of the Board of Revenue by order dated 22nd October, 1970. While dismissing the said revision petitions the learned Member of the Board of Revenue directed that the stay order passed by the Board of Revenue in the revisions would continue till the decisions of the appeals of the assessee and further that the time taken in prosecuting the revision petitions would not be taken into consideration while computing the period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard Shri G.S. Bapna, the learned counsel for the applicant. The assessee has not entered appearance in spite of notice. At the outset it may be mentioned 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 in cases where an appeal lies against the order under section 13 of the Act. This Court, in Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jaipur v. Chhaganmal Bastimal of Beawar [1970] 25 STC 341, has construed the provisions of section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and has held that the second proviso clearly bars entertainment of a revision application in cases in which appeal lies under section 13 of the Act and no appeal has been filed. This Court has also la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion as to whether the time spent in prosecuting the revision applications could be excluded for calculating the period of limitation for filing the appeal was a matter to be considered by the appellate authority and the Board of Revenue could not give any direction in this regard while dismissing the revision petitions on the ground that the same were not maintainable. Similarly the learned Member of the Board of Revenue was also not competent to give a direction that the stay order shall continue to remain in force till the disposal of the appeals because the revision applications were being dismissed on the ground that the same were not maintainable and any order passed in the said revision applications was without jurisdiction and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
