Assistant Commissioner Anti ... vs Ms Hind Traders ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2536 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/003530]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 86/2018

Assistant Commissioner, Anti-Evasion, Circle Alwar.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
M/s. Hind Traders, 38, Manu Marg, Alwar.
                                                                 ----Respondent

Connected With S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 87/2018 Assistant Commissioner, Anti-Evasion, Circle Alwar

----Petitioner Versus M/s. Hind Traders, 38, Manu Marg, Alwar.

----Respondent S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 88/2018 Assistant Commissioner, Anti-Evasion, Circle Alwar

----Petitioner Versus M/s. Hind Traders, 38, Manu Marg, Alwar.

----Respondent S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 89/2018 Assistant Commissioner, Anti-Evasion, Circle Alwar

----Petitioner Versus M/s. Hind Traders, 38, Manu Marg, Alwar.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash, CTO For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

01/03/2023

[2023/RJJP/003530] (2 of 3) [STR-86/2018]

1. In all these revisions petitions, registry has highlighted a

delay of 751 days.

2. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 17.09.2015

passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board was admittedly received in the

office of Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department on

16.10.2015 and the decision for filing the revision under Section

84 of RVAT Act, 2003 was taken on 11.12.2015. The said order

dated 11.12.2015 was dispatched to the concerned Assistant

Commissioner/CTO, Anti Evasion, Alwar through 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

immediately get the review petition filed by panel counsels. 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.

3. Per contra, respondents have vehemently opposed the

present revision petitions and submitted that the Revenue-

petitioner has not furnished sufficient cause in the condonation of

delay application and the present petition is liable to be dismissed

as being time barred.

4. Heard and considered the rival submissions.

5. It is an admitted and undisputed fact that the impugned

order dated 17/09/2015 was duly served upon the petitioners on

16/10/2015. The Additional Commissioner, Legal had taken a

confirm and conscious decision to file revisions petitions on

11/12/2015, but on account of negligence, carelessness and

[2023/RJJP/003530] (3 of 3) [STR-86/2018]

laches on part of the department, necessary steps were not

carried out in a timely manner. The decision was supposedly

taken again on 27/04/2018, however qua the period between

11/12/2015 to 27/04/2018, the petitioner has not produced any

evidence in supported of their contention. The petitioners have

neither placed on record any postal document in support of their

contention, nor have they highlighted that any disciplinary

proceedings were initiated against the erring officers. Only vague

and unfounded contentions are put forward, which does not merit

acceptance.

6. The revision-petitions, being riddled with delay and laches, is

dismissed in view of Apex Court judgment of Union of India vs.

N Murugesan (Civil Appeal Nos. 2491-2492 of 2021 decided on

07.10.2021). Pending applications are also dismissed.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

ANIL SHARMA /101-104

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)