In a recent case, the Rajasthan High Court (HC) has held that a time-barred revision petition is not allowable without furnishing sufficient cause of Condonation.
The revenue, the petitioner filed the revision petitions for a delay of 751 days. The impugned order dated 17.09.2015 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board was admittedly received in the office of the Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department on 16.10.2015 and the decision for filing the revision section 84 of RVAT Act, 2003 was taken on 11.12.2015.
Any dealer aggrieved by an order passed by the Tax Board under sub-section (10) of section 83 or sub-section (1) of section 33, 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 because it involves a question of law.
The said order dated 11.12.2015 was dispatched to the concerned Assistant Commissioner/CTO, Anti Evasion, Alwar through the post but the same was lost during transit. Then on 27.04.2018, the office of Additional Commissioner (Legal) Headquarter Commercial Taxes Department Jaipur directed the CTO, Anti Evasion Alwar to get the review petition filed by panel counsels immediately.
It is contended that the concerned officer came to know about the sanction order dated 11.12.2015 only when the letter dated 27.04.2018 was received and thereupon, immediate action was taken.
Hind Traders, the respondent opposed the revision petitions and stated that the Revenue petitioner has not furnished sufficient cause in the condonation of delay application.
The Additional Commissioner had legally taken a confirm and conscious decision to file promptly on 11/12/2015, but on account of negligence, carelessness, and laches on the part of the department, necessary steps were not carried out promptly.
Justice Sameer Jain observed that the petitioner has not produced any evidence in support of their contention. The petitioners have neither placed on record any postal document in support of their contention nor highlighted any disciplinary proceedings. Only vague and unfounded contentions are put forward, which do not merit acceptance. The Court dismissed the revision petitions, being riddled with delay and laches.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
