N. M. KASLIWAL, J. - (1.) IN this revision filed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Alwar, a preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent that this revision is time-barred. The Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer, decided the appeal by order dated January 5, 1987. According to the petitioner the copy of the order of the Tribunal dated January 5, 1987, was received in the office of the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur on February 25, 1987, and the Commissioner thereafter, directed the petitioner to file the present revision in this Court. The revision has been filed on August 18, 1987. Section 14-B (2) and section 15 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), relevant for the purpose of deciding the present controversy are reproduced as under : " 14-B. (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) The Tribunal shall send a copy of the order passed under this section to the dealer and to the Commissioner. 15. (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) The Commissioner may, if he objects to any order made by the Tribunal under section 14-B, direct any Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer to apply to the High Court for revision of such order on the ground that the case involves a question of law. An application under this sub-section shall be filed within 180 days of the date on which the order sought to be revised is communicated in writing to the Commissioner. "
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner the copy of the order dated January 5, 1987, was received in the office of the Commissioner on February 25, 1987, and thus the revision filed on August 18, 1987, is well within 180 days as provided under section 15 (2) of the Act. On the other hand it was contended by Mr. Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee that the impugned order of the Tribunal dated January 5, 1987, was despatched to the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jaipur, on January 12, 1987, and received on January 13, 1987. Thereafter, the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jaipur, sent the order to Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Alwar, on January 13, 1987, as the jurisdiction of Alwar and Bharatpur area was transferred to the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Alwar. This order was received by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Alwar, on January 17, 1987. It has thus been argued by Mr. Singhal that the limitation of 180 days should be counted from January 13, 1987, when the order was received by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jaipur, who was authorised to receive the order on behalf of the Commissioner. It is further argued that it may be an internal arrangement of the department as to when such copy is sent by the Commercial Taxes Officer to the office of the Commissioner, but so far as the limitation is concerned, it must commence from the date the order is communicated to the Commercial Taxes Officer concerned. The period cannot be extended on account of any default or negligence of the Commercial Taxes Officer in not sending the order to the Commissioner for a long time. It is further argued that communication of the order of the Tribunal to the Commercial Taxes Officer concerned should be valid communication to the Commissioner as the revision itself is filed in the name of the Commercial Taxes Officer (C. T. O. ). Mr. Singhal also pointed out that an application for revision to the High Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act lies in form S. T. 9-B as provided under rule 39-A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955. Form S. T. 9-B appended to the Rules in column (2) prescribed as under : " That the copy of order passed by the Tribunal under section 14-B (1) of the R. S. T. Act, 1954, was received by the petitioner on. . . . . . . . . . . . . " It is thus contended by Mr. Singhal that the above clause in form S. T. 9-B clearly indicates that the petitioner has to mention the date of receipt of order by him and not the date of receipt of order by the Commissioner. The petitioner being the Commercial Taxes Officer as such the limitation should be counted from the date when such order of the Tribunal is received by or communicated to the petitioner. Mr. Singhal argued that the form S. T. 9-B provided under rule 39-A has statutory force and is mandatory. I see no force in the contention of Mr. Singhal. Under sub- (2) of section 14-B it is clearly provided that the Tribunal shall send a copy of the order under this section to the dealer and to the Commissioner. Sub-section (2) of section 15 also provides that it is the Commissioner who will direct any Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer to apply to the High Court for revision of such order and an application shall be filed within 180 days of the date on which the order sought to be revised is communicated in writing to the Commissioner. Thus, from a bare reading of both the above provisions it is clear that the legislature has clearly mentioned that the Tribunal shall send the copy of its order to the Commissioner and then the Commissioner would direct any Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer to file the revision. The language of sub-section (2) of section 15 is further clear and makes a mention that the application for revision shall be filed within 180 days of the date on which the order sought to be revised is communicated in writing to the Commissioner. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent did not refer or bring to the notice of the court any order of the Commissioner authorising the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jaipur, or Commercial Taxes Officer, Alwar, to accept the order of the Tribunal on behalf of the Commissioner for the purpose of section 14-B (2) of the Act. It is further important to note that it is the Commissioner alone who is authorised under sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act to direct any Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer to apply to the High Court for revision. Thus, it is not necessary that the Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer of the area only to file such revision but it is only after such authority being given by the Commissioner that the particular Commercial Taxes Officer becomes entitled to file the revision. A statutory right of revision to be filed within 180 days of the communication of the order to the Commissioner as contemplated in sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act cannot be whittled down by any, language used in form S. T. 9-B. The scheme of the Act as is clear from the language of sections 14 and 15 also shows that it is the Commissioner who may if he objects to any order made by the Tribunal direct any Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer to apply to the High Court for revision. Thus, it is the satisfaction of the Commissioner himself which is necessary for filing revision and not that of the petitioner who may be any Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer. The provision in form S. T. 9-B only deals with procedure and mentions those particulars to be given in the memo of revision. Such provision in the form can never control, limit or override the substantive provisions of limitation prescribed in the Act itself. Thus, there is complete fallacy in the argument of Mr. Singhal that limitation should be counted from the date of communication of the order of the Tribunal to the petitioner who may be a Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer. If this argument of Mr. Singhal is accepted then it would result in great anomaly and would be rather against the provisions contained in section 14-B (2) of the Act. In a given case, the order of the Tribunal might be communicated on an earlier date to the Commissioner and come to the notice of the Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer after a very long time and in that case if the argument of Mr. Singhal is accepted the period would commence from the date when the order of the Tribunal was received by the Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer. Thus, the interpretation put by Mr. Singhal cannot be accepted.
(3.) I also find support in my above view in a recent order dated February 5, 1988, passed by Milap Chand, J. sitting at Jodhpur in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Madhav Medical Agency, S. B. Sales Tax Revision No. 169 of 1987. In the result, this revision is held within limitation and preliminary objection raised by the assessee is dismissed. .;