S. C. AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") as amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984. It relates to the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66. By order dated 21st February, 1966 the assessing authority, namely, Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle B, Jaipur, assessed the tax liability of the non-applicant M/s. Trade Link (hereinafter referred to as "the assessee") for the year 1964-65 and by order dated 9th March, 1966 the tax liability of the assessee for the year 1965-66 was assessed. Instead of filing appeals against the said orders of assessment, the assessee filed revision petitions before the Board of Revenue under section 14 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The said revision petitions of the assessee were dismissed as not maintainable by the learned single Member of the Board of Revenue by order dated 22nd October, 1970. While dismissing the said revision petitions the learned Member of the Board of Revenue directed that the stay order passed by the Board of Revenue in the revisions would continue till the decisions of the appeals of the assessee and further that the time taken in prosecuting the revision petitions would not be taken into consideration while computing the period of limitation for filing the appeals. Special appeals filed against the said order of the learned Member of the Board of Revenue were dismissed by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue by order dated 30th November, 1972. Thereafter an application was moved under section 15 for reference to this Court of the questions of law arising out of the order of the Board of Revenue. The said application was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue by order dated 18th May, 1973. The applicant thereafter, moved this Court, and this Court, by order dated December 19, 1974, directed the Board of Revenue to refer to this Court the following questions : " (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was permissible for the Board of Revenue to order that the time spent in pursuing the revision application would not be counted in calculating the period of limitation for the filing of an appeal ? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was permissible for the Board of Revenue to order that the stay order shall continue to remain in force until the disposal of the appeal ?"
(2.) IN view of the aforesaid directions given by this Court the Board of Revenue referred the questions mentioned above to this Court. During the pendency of the reference the Act was amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984 and as a result of the said amendment the reference is now being disposed of as a revision under section 15 of the Act. I have heard Shri G. S. Bapna, the learned counsel for the applicant. The assessee has not entered appearance in spite of notice. At the outset it may be mentioned that under the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Act a revision does not lie to the Board of Revenue is cases where an appeal lies against the order under section 13 of the Act. This Court, in Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jaipur v. Chhaganmal Bastimal of Beawar [1970] 25 STC 341, has construed the provisions of section 14 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and has held that the second proviso clearly bars entertainment of a revision application in cases in which appeal lies under section 13 of the Act and no appeal has been filed. This Court has also laid down that the said proviso restricts the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to entertain revision applications. In view of the said decision of this Court it must be held that the revision petitions that were filed by the assessee before the Board of Revenue against the assessment orders were not maintainable inasmuch as an appeal lay against the said orders under section 13 of the Act. Once it is held that the revision petitions that were filed by the assessee could not be entertained by the Board of Revenue under section 14 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act it follows that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to entertain the said revision petitions and the said revision petitions were rightly dismissed by the learned single Member of the Board of Revenue as not maintainable. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue while dismissing the said revision petitions gave two directions : (i) the time spent in pursuing the revision applications be not counted in calculating the period of limitation for the filing of the appeal; and (ii) the stay order passed in the revision applications would continue till the disposal of the appeals. In view of the fact that the revision applications could not be entertained by the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision petitions the learned Member of the Board of Revenue should not have passed an order in the said revision petitions giving the directions referred to above. The question as to whether the time spent in prosecuting the revision applications could be excluded for calculating the period of limitation for filing the appeal was a matter to be considered by the appellate authority and the Board of Revenue could not give any direction in this regard while dismissing the revision petitions on the ground that the same were not maintainable. Similarly the learned Member of the Board of Revenue was also not competent to give a direction that the stay order shall continue to remain in force till the disposal of the appeals because the revision applications were being dismissed on the ground that the same were not maintainable and any order passed in the said revision applications was without jurisdiction and the same could not be allowed to continue beyond the date on which the revision applications were dismissed. For the reasons aforesaid both the questions must be decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. With reference to question No. 1 it is held that it was not permissible for the Board of Revenue to order that the time spent in pursuing the revision application should not be counted in calculating the period of limitation for filing of the appeal. With regard to question No. 2 it is held that it was not permissible for the Board of Revenue to order that the stay order shall continue to remain in force until the disposal of the appeal.
(3.) THE revision is, therefore, allowed and the directions given in the order dated 22nd October, 1970 passed by the single Member of the Board of Revenue, which have been affirmed by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue in its order dated 30th November, 1972 directing that the time spent in pursuing the revision applications should not be counted in calculating the period of limitation for filing the appeals and that the stay order passed in the revision applications shall continue to remain in force until the disposal of the appeals, are set aside. THEre will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .;