SINGH, J. - (1.) THE Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Kanpur, has under section 11(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act referred the following question for our opinion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed by the revising authority in the department's Revision No. 623 of 1969 is valid in view of the order of the revising authority in the assessee's Revision No. 1733 of 1968 passed earlier ?"
(2.) THE assessee carried on the business in Sutli jute goods, etc., in the year 1964-65. He declared a net turnover of Rs. 28,57,355.69. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the accounts and fixed the turnover as Rs. 31,10,000. An appeal was filed against this order before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), who reduced the turnover to Rs. 29,20,000. A revision was filed by the assessee before the revising authority, but that was dismissed. The department also preferred a revision against the order of the appellate authority, but that revision was not heard along with the revision of the assessee, as it appears to have been filed subsequently. The Additional Judge (Revisions) by his order dated 24th April, 1970, allowed the revision of the department and restored the order of the Sales Tax Officer. The question that arises in the reference is as to whether the revising authority could, in view of its earlier order, restore the order of the Sales Tax Officer. Mr. G. D. Srivastava, appearing on behalf of the assessee, contended firstly that inasmuch as the Judge (Revisions) had, in the earlier revision filed by the assessee finally disposed of the matter, the order of the Sales Tax Officer had merged with the revisional order and, that being so, the revising authority could not on the revision filed by the department restore the order of the Sales Tax Officer. In the alternative, it has been contended that the earlier revisional order, as respects the question as to the correct turnover to be assessed in the hands of the assessee, had become final and could not be reopened by the revising authority in a subsequent revision filed by the State.
(3.) SO far as the first contention is concerned, that does not appear to us to be sound. Under section 10(2) of the Act, both the Commissioner of Sales Tax and any other person aggrieved by an order passed by the appellate authority can file a revision. The period of limitation for filing such an application in revision is one year [see section 10(6) of the Act]. This being so, the Commissioner of Sales Tax or the aggrieved person can wait and file their revision application before the expiry of the period of limitation. The section also does not make it incumbent on a party to file his revision application as soon as the other party does. Normally, it may be that a party may after receiving notice of a revision application filed by the other party, file his own revision application in case he is aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, but the law does not make it incumbent on him to do so. He can postpone the filing of his revision application before the period of limitation prescribed under section 10(6) runs out. Section 10 does not contain any provision which destroys the right conferred by section 10(2) of filing a revision in case the revision application of one party has been disposed of. In the absence of such a provision, we do not think it appropriate to apply the theory of merger, and hold that as soon as a revision application of one of the parties is disposed of, the other party loses the statutory right conferred on him by section 10(2) to file a revision within the period prescribed by section 10(6). We therefore reject the first contention.;