- (1.) THE instant revision has been filed against the order dated 31.8.2001 (Annex.5), by which the appeal against the order dated 6.8.97 rejecting the application of the petitioner-assessee by the District Level Scrutiny Committee (for short, "DLSC") for exemption of sales tax on the ground of being filed at a belated stage, has been rejected by the Rajasthan Tax Board.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner established a new industry and on31.5.97 he applied, in a prescribed form (Annex.3), for the benefit under the Sales Tax incentive Scheme, 1989 (Annex.2) (hereinafter called "the Scheme"), which provided for exemption of tax etc. on fulfilling certain conditions in case the eligibility certificate is granted under Para 5 thereof. In Column 8 thereof, the date of commencement of commercial production was mentioned as 4.8.96. THE said application had been rejected by the DLSC- the Competent Committee constituted under the said Scheme- vide order dated 6.8.97 (Annex.4) being time barred as it could have been filed only within the period of 180 days from the date of commencement of commercial production in terms of the said scheme. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner filed an appeal, which has been dismissed by the Tax Board vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.8.2001. Hence, this revision. Mr.Vineet Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there had been some error etc. and petitioner, while submitting the application for grant of benefit of the scheme, had mentioned that the commercial production started from 4.8.96 though it was not correct and the actual date of commencement of the commer- cial production was 2.10.96. Petitioner's application stood rejected by the DLSC being time barred, vide order dt.6.8.97, without giving any opportunity of hearing to him and the appellate Board has not considered the matter is correct perspective, therefore, the case requires interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional powers. The facts are not in dispute. Petitioner, while submitting the application, had mentioned that commercial production commenced on 4.8.96. Subsequently, it got amended by him from the Competent Authority though not submitted to the DLSC that the commercial production started from2.10.96 for the reason that the certificate by the district Industrial Centra, Rajsamand, making that correction, was issued on 29.11.97, though the application had already been rejected by the DLSC on 6.8.97. Even if it is assumed that the commercial production started from 2.10.96, limitation for submitting the application under Para 5(b) of the Scheme was 180 days from the date of commencement of commercial production. However, it provided that the application could be entertained beyond the said limitation on "sufficient grounds" by the competent authority. Even if the commercial production started on 2.10.96, the limitation, i.e. 180 days, expired on 1.4.97, but the application was filed by the petitioner on 31.5.97, thus, it was time barred for about 60 days and admittedly, no application for condonation of such a delay was ever filed, what to say of showing any "sufficient ground" for condoning the delay. Thus, there was no obligation on the part of the DLSC to consider the application hopelessly time-barred if the application for condonation of delay, showing "sufficient ground" has not been filed alongwith the said application. In such a case, principles of natural justice are not attracted. The DLSC was not under any obligation to ask the petitioner to file application for condonation of delay and show some artificial non-existent sufficient grounds for condoning the delay. Moreso, before the Tax Board, there was no material, on the basis of which a contrary view could have been taken for the reason that as per petitioner's own submission/contention/ averments and documents filed by the assessee-petitioner himself, the application was time barred. Therefore, what was there for the DLSC to inquire about and give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
(3.) WHETHER the application was within the time or not, is a question of fact and on the admission of the petitioner itself, finding has been recorded by the DLSC as well as by the Appellate Board that it was time-barred, I fail to understand how this Court can interfere with those orders in exercise of revisional power under Sec. 86 of the Rajasthan Sales and Purchase Tax Act, 1994 (for short, "the Act, 1994"). The power of revision, conferred under Sec. 86 of the Act upon this Court, can be exercised only when the case involves a question of law, which means a case involving the construction of a Statute or document of title. A finding on a question of fact may also be open to attack as erroneous in law when there is no evidence to support it or it is perverse. (Vide Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. vs. Income Tax Commissioner (1), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "A finding on a question of fact is open to attack as erroneous in law only if it is not supported by any evidence, or if it is unreasonable and perverse, but that where there is evidence to consider, the decision of the Tribunal is final even though the Court might not, on the materials, have come to the same conclusion if it had the power to substitute its own judgment." Similar view has been reiterated in Bhagirathi Agrawal & Bros. vs. State of Orissa (2), wherein the Court stressly observed that the question of fact cannot be decided on surmises and fictions and unless the judgment is shown to be perverse or based on no evidence, the revisional power cannot be exercised. ;