C T O BHILWARA Vs. LAXMAN SINGH SAMPAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions involve a similar question and as such they are being disposed of by this common order. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer made a reference under section 15 (1), Rajasthan Sabs Tax Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Rajasthan Act') read with sec. 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Central Act' ). In pursuance of the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (Rajasthan Act No. 20 of 1984) (in short the Amendment Act), it was treated as an application for revision under Sec. 15 of the Rajasthan Act as amended by this Amendment Act. The second revision petition No. 388 of 1985 has been filed under see. 13 (6) of the Amendment Act against the order of the Revenue Board, Ajmer dated 13. 11. 1984, The facts giving rise to these revisions petitions may be summarised thus.

(2.) IN Revision Petition No. 92/87, an assessment order was passed on June 6, 1975 under the Central Act for the period from 7 8. 71 to 26. 8. 1972. After issuing notice and hearing the assessee, the assessing authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,456/- under Sec. 7-AA of the Rajasthan Act read with Sec. 9 (2-A) of the Central Act and levied interest of Rs. . 13,597/- under Sec. ll-B of the Rajasthan Act read with Sec. 9 (2) of the Central Act by his order dated January 2, 1978. Its appeal was dismissed by the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Ajmer. The assessee filed Revision No. 63/87 Bhilwara before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and it was allowed on October 4, 1978, holding that the said penally and interest could not be imposed under the aforesaid provisions of the Rajasthan Act as they did not exist in the Rajasthan Act when the Central Act came into force on January 5, 1957. Thereafter, the Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhilwara made an application before the Revenue Board for making a reference to this Court. It was allowed and the reference was made as said above.

(3.) THERE is yet another aspect of the matter. Even ignoring the said Notification dated May 16, 1979, the C. T. O. , Circle 'b', Udaipur being the assessing authority of the assessee-non-petitioner was the person aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Board within the meaning of Sec. 18 (6) of the Amendment Act. The combined reading of Sec. 15 of the Rajasthan Act as amended and sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 13 of the Amendment Act leaves no doubt that the C. T. O. , Circle 'b', Udaipur was fully competent to file the revision petition even if he was not authorised by the Commissioner for this purpose as he was the person aggrieved with the said order. At the most, he could be required to pay the court-fee of Rs. 100/- as required under sub-sec. (9) of Sec. 13 of the Amendment Act. At this belated stage of the revision, it cannot be rejected on the ground of the non-payment of requisite court-fee. The preliminary objection raised in the revision petition No. 388 of 1985 is hereby repelled.