AMIT BAJAJ ADVOCATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

:ORDER:

S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.138/2009. (C.T.O., Sirohi Vs. M/s Agarwal J.V., Sirohi) DATE OF

ORDER : April 17, 2009. PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS ____________________________________

Mr. Rishabh Sancheti for Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur for the petitioner.

BY THE COURT :

This sales tax revision petition under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sale Tax Act has been filed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Sirohit challenging the judgment and order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the learned Tax Board, Ajmer in appeal No.1772/2008/Sirohi, whereby, the Tax Board has upheld the order dated 29.05.2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), whereby, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed under Section 84 of the Rajassthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 and set aside the order passed by the assessing authority imposing the penalty upon the respondent/dealer vide order dated 19.02.2008.

Learned counsel for the Department vehemently argued that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), so also, Tax Board is illegal and not based upon sound reasons. The main contention of learned counsel for the Department is that the Tax Board has not appreciated the relevant provisions of law and material available on record. As per the Department, the pre-condition for availing the benefit under C- Form is that the purchaser must use the goods inter alia for manufacturing or processing; but, this is not the case of the respondent. More so, the respondent is work contractor, therefore, the Tax Board has erred in relying upon the judgment of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 45 STC 201. So also, the judgment of the apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Jaipur Udyog Ltd., reported in 30 STC 565.

In fact, the facts of both the cases were altogether different and the facts of the present case are entirely different. I have perused the present revision petition filed by the Department under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax 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, ifr 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 Incharge of a check-post to apply to the High Court for revision of such order on the ground 3
that it involves a question of law; and such officer or Incharge of a check-post shall make the application to the High Court within one hundred and eighty days of the date on which the order sought to be revised is communicated in writing to the Commissioner.
(3) The application for revision under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall state the question of law involved in the order sought to be revised, and the High Court may formulate the question of law in any form or allow any other question of law to be raised.
(4) The High Court shall after hearing the parties to the revision, decide the question of law stated to it or formulated by it, and shall thereupon pass such order as is necessary to dispose of the case.
(5) Any person feeling aggrieved by an order passed under sub-section (4) may apply for a review of the order to the High Court and the High Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit."

In my opinion, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, scope is very limited and if any question of law arises, then, it must be formulated after mentioning the grounds. In my opinion, in a very casual manner, this revision petition has been filed under Section 86 of the Act of 1994 having three paragraph; and, in the fourth paragraph, questions of law have been formulated. It is very strange that in para 4, ten questions have been formulated. However, upon perusal of the whole of the revision petition including statement of facts, 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 4
para 4 of the statement of fact.

I have perused the judgments reported in 45 STC 210, Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. State of Rajasthan, so also, 30 STC 565, State of Rajasthan Vs. Jaipur Udyog Ltd. 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 oil and other material was purchased, therefore, obviously the goods was purchased for use of constructing the national highway; and, for that purpose, for processing, the said material was used.

In this view of the matter, no error has been committed by the learned Tax Board as well as Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, no question of law arises for interference.
This revision petition is, therefore, accordingly dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.
Ojha, a.