- (1.) DEFECTS ignored.
(2.) PETITIONER 's contention is that he has preferred revision petitions before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes against order dated 24.9.2009 and 16.1.2010 wherein he prayed for interim relief but the petitioner's prayer for interim relief has not been considered and decided. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in identical case the matter was disposed of by this Court giving direction to the Revisional Authority to consider the prayer for interim relief. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed as back as on 24.9.2009 and 16.1.2010 and against these orders no appeals were preferred which according to learned counsel, counsel for the respondent is to avoid the pre -deposit condition. It is also submitted that after filing these revision petitions, the prayer for interim relief was never pressed by the petitioner.
(3.) THERE are allegation and counter allegation of seeking interim relief and non -consideration against which stand of the department is the interim relief was never pressed for a long period. Petitioner's contention is that no date was fixed by the Commissioner himself so that petitioner could have pressed the prayer for interim relief.;