MEENA, J. - (1.) THESE appeals are directed against the similar orders of learned Single Judge dated 24. 07. 2002. As in all these appeals common issue is involved for the consideration of this Bench, we have heard all these appeals and decide them by this common order.
(2.) THE short controversy involved in these appeals is whether the Commissioner has exercised his revisional power, under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of the Section 14 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1951'), in accordance with law? The common facts in these appeals are that the petitioners are holding All India Permits of tourist buses. The permits for these buses have been granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur. The District Transport cum Taxation Officer, Rajsamand determined the road tax and special road tax in respect of motor vehicles of the petitioners. While determination of tax was in the process by the Taxation Officer, it was considered by him that concerned motor vehicles when travelled out of State of Rajasthan for sometime, for such period when the vehicles are out of State of Rajasthan, these petitioners are not liable to pay the tax for that period and the petitioner claimed exemption for tax for that period. Having been satisfied with the claim of the petitioner, the Taxation Officer under Section 3 of the Act of 1951 granted exemption from payment of special road tax for the period for which the motor vehicle was out of State and did not ply on the roads of State of Rajasthan. The first set of orders, and second set or orders in these cases have been passed on 22. 12. 1993 & 18. 05. 1994. The petitioners had paid the tax as per the orders passed by the Taxation Officer. The Taxation Officer has also granted the refund of tax for the period during which the vehicles plied out of State. After grant of such relief and passing of the order to this effect, the same authority after seven years, submitted a suo motu revision petition before the Commissioner, which has been considered by the Addl. Transport Commissioner, Rajasthan. The Addl. Commissioner vide order dated 31. 12. 2001 has set aside the orders of Taxation Officer passed in the years 1993 & 1994 and remanded the matter back to the Taxation Officer with a direction to consider the notification dated 24. 7. 1990 and order dated 31. 8. 1990 and re-determine the tax in the light of aforesaid notification and order. These petitioners preferred a writ petition against the order of the Commissioner before this Court and this Court found that it is not a case of suo motu revision, as Commissioner has not applied his own mind in invoking proviso to Sub-Sec. (2) of the Sec. 14 of the Act, 1951, before issue of notice. Learned Single Judge has also found that the order of the Taxation Officer has been revised after seven years i. e. beyond a reasonable time. For that reason also the order of the Commissioner is bad in law. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the State submits that when there is no limit for suo motu revision of the order passed by the Taxation Officer, the order can be revised suo motu at any time. The Commissioner has power under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of the Section 14 of the Act, 1951. The Commissioner has simply remanded the matter back to the Taxation Officer to re-determine tax. The party can approach and can make his submission on merits before him, if they are entitled for any relief, that will be granted by the Taxation Officer.
(3.) MR. B. L. Maheshwari, Counsel for these private parties- respondents submits that proviso to Sub-section (2) of the Section 14 of the Act, 1951 speaks about the revision of the any order. Revision of order can be on petition of aggrieved person or on his own motion of Commissioner. He further submits that in case of suo motu revision, first he should examine record himself and not on a petition by the Taxation Officer, if without application of mind a notice has been issued, that cannot be a suo motu revision under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of the Section 14 of the Act of 1951. He further submits that even otherwise the power of suo motu revision can be exercised only within 90 days from the date of order and here the petition for revision of the orders of the Taxation Officer has been made after seven years from the date of original orders passed by the Taxation Officer. On that count also there was no justification to interfere by the Commissioner in the orders passed by Taxation Officer in the years 1993 & 1994 i. e. after seven years. No explanation has been given for such inordinate delay. The proviso to Sub-Section (2) of the Section 14 of the Act of 1951 reads as under:- ``provided that the Commissioner may on his own motion or on the application of a person aggrieved made in the prescribed manner and filed within a period of 90 days, call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act and revise any such order and may reverse or vary the same. '' The admitted facts are that the Taxation Officer has passed the orders determining the tax on 22. 12. 1993 & 18. 05. 1994 and the revision petition has been filed by the Taxation Officer before the Commissioner on 13. 11. 2000 i. e. after seven years and the limit provided for revision of the order of Taxation Officer is 90 days only. No justification has been shown for this inordinate delay. ;