Revisional remedy cannot be defeated by a practice-based time bar when no statutory limitation is prescribed.

Where no statutory limitation was prescribed for a revision, the revisional authority could not reject it on a rigid practice-based time bar founded on an erroneous assumption that the earlier appellate order had been duly communicated. The record showed that such communication had not in fact been issued, and the authority had also declined to accept the petitioner's affidavit. The revisional order was therefore quashed, and the matter was directed to be reheard and decided on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional authority was justified in rejecting the revision petition as time-barred and whether the High Court should interfere and direct rehearing on merits.

Analysis: The order rejecting the revision was founded on a mistaken factual assumption that the earlier appellate order had been duly communicated under postal certificate. The record showed that the communication had not in fact been issued, and the authority had also declined to accept the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. As no statutory period of limitation was prescribed for the revision, a rigid practice-based limitation could not be used to defeat the revisional remedy. Procedural rules and practices were required to advance justice, and a taxpayer should not be non-suited on technical grounds when the remedy was otherwise available.

Conclusion: The order treating the revision as time-barred was set aside, and the revision was directed to be heard and decided on merits in accordance with law. The issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the revisional order was quashed with a direction for fresh consideration of the revision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no statutory limitation is prescribed, a revisional authority cannot reject a revision on a rigid practice-based limitation founded on an erroneous factual premise, and procedural requirements must be construed to advance adjudication on merits rather than defeat it on technicalities.

---