9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tax Board has not appreciated the relevant provisions of law and material available on record in its proper light. For this assertion, no specific provision of law or material is pointed out by the petitioner nor any ground is raised except para 4 of the statement of fact. Therefore, no question of law arises for interference. Revision dismissed. - 135 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 13-4-2009 - GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J. ORDER:- By the Court: GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS J. This sales tax revision petition under section 86 of the Rajasthan Sale Tax Act, 1994 has been filed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Sirohi challenging the judgment and order dated December 15, 2008 passed by the learned Tax Board, Ajmer in Appeal No. 1772/2008/ Sirohi, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x Act, 1994. The scope of revision is very limited. The language of section 86 runs as under: 86. Revision to the High Court. (1) Any dealer aggrieved by an order passed by the Tax Board under sub-section (11) of section 85 or under sub-section (1) of section 37, may, within ninety days from the date of service of such order, apply to the High Court in the prescribed form accompanied by the prescribed fee, for revision of such order on the ground that it involves a question of law. (2) The Commissioner may, if he feels aggrieved by any order passed by the Tax Board under sub-section (11) of section 85, or under sub-section (1) of section 37, direct, any officer or in-charge of a check-post to apply to the High Court for revision of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is revealed that only ground is raised in para 4 of the statement of facts that the Tax Board has not appreciated the relevant provisions of law and material available on record in its proper light. For this assertion, no specific provision of law or material is pointed out by the petitioner nor any ground is raised except para 4 of the statement of fact. I have perused the judgments in Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. State of Rajasthan reported in [1980] 45 STC 201 (Raj), so also, State of Rajasthan v. Jaipur Udyog Limited [1972] 30 STC 565 (SC). In my opinion, the learned Tax Board has rightly decided this matter while following aforesaid judgments because in this case for construction of national highway, diesel, LDO furnace ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
