J. S. VERMA, C. J. - (1.) THIS revision by the department is against the order dated August 14, 1974 by a single Bench of the Board of Revenue accepting the assessee's contention and setting aside the penalty of Rs. 1,000 imposed under section 16 (1) (b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue by its order dated April 29, 1975.
(2.) THE assessing authority imposed penalties of Rs. 1,718 under section 16 (1) (b) and Rs. 1,000 under section 16 (1) (c) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, which were reduced to Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 800 respectively by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals ). In the assessee's revision to the Board of Revenue, the single Bench by its order dated August 14, 1974, affirmed the imposition of penalty under section 16 (1) (c) for late filing of the return but the penalty under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act has been set aside. THE department's appeal to a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue has been rejected. Hence this further revision by the department. Learned counsel for the department contended that even according to the facts disclosed in the return filed by the assessee and the material produced along with the return there was delay in payment of a part of tax due for the last quarter (period of assessment 25th October, 1965 to 12th November, 1966) and therefore, penalty under section 16 (1) (b) as it then existed could not be avoided. Learned counsel contended that this aspect has not even been considered by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue. At the instance of the department I have looked into the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax on which it placed reliance as well as the order of single Bench of the Board of Revenue to examine the merits of this contention particularly in view of the fact that a long period has elapsed till now and therefore, a remand to the Board of Revenue for a fresh decision would cause a further delay in the conclusion of these proceedings which involves merely a penalty of Rs. 1,000 only. Having perused the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and of the single Bench of the Board of Revenue I do not consider it appropriate case for any interference in a revision. The finding of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on which learned counsel relies in respect of the penalty imposed under section 16 (1) (b) of the Act is that the delay was established only in respect of an amount of Rs. 1,533 for which the Deputy Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000. The order of the single Bench of the Board of Revenue does not show that this contention which finds place in the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was advanced before it since there is no mention of the same in the order. This being so, there was no occasion for it to be considered by the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue, and for the same reason it does not arise for consideration even in this further revision. Moreover, the delay found by the Deputy Commissioner was only in respect of an amount of Rs. 1,533 in his order passed in 1971 while this penalty was set aside by a single Bench of the Board of Revenue in 1974. After all these years it does not appear desirable to reopen that matter which appears to have been given up even before the single Bench of the Board of Revenue. Consequently, the revision is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed. .;