No statutory limitation for revision cannot be replaced by internal practice, while fact-based findings may not raise a question of law.

A revision under the sales tax law could not be rejected as time-barred merely because the authority followed an internal 90-day practice, where neither the statute nor the rules prescribed any limitation period; at most, the authority could decline an unduly delayed revision in the exercise of discretion. The text also notes that findings based on material showing concealed stocks belonged to the assessee were factual, not legal, so no question of law arose on that aspect. The remedy was to be construed liberally in aid of justice, but the challenge on the facts failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a revision application under the sales tax ordinance could be dismissed as time-barred when no period of limitation was prescribed by the statute or rules. (ii) Whether, on the facts, no question of law arose from the order of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner.

Issue (i): Whether a revision application under the sales tax ordinance could be dismissed as time-barred when no period of limitation was prescribed by the statute or rules.

Analysis: The revisional authority had adopted a practice of treating 90 days as the relevant period, but a mere practice cannot override the statute or curtail the statutory right of revision. Where the enactment and the rules prescribe no fixed limitation, the authority may decline to entertain an unduly delayed revision in the exercise of discretion, but it cannot reject the revision solely on the ground that it is barred by time. The remedy must be construed liberally and in aid of justice.

Conclusion: The first question was answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, no question of law arose from the order of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner.

Analysis: The record contained ample material supporting the finding that the concealed stocks belonged to the assessee-firm, and the assessment authority had given detailed reasons for its conclusion. The discovery of substantial stocks shortly after the close of the assessment year was also relevant to the determination of turnover. The challenge was therefore factual rather than legal, and the authority was justified in interfering with the appellate order.

Conclusion: The second question was answered in the negative, in favour of the revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was disposed of by answering both referred questions against the assessee and upholding the revenue authorities' action.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no statutory period of limitation is prescribed for revision, a tribunal's internal practice cannot be treated as a rigid bar to maintainability, and findings supported by adequate material do not raise a question of law merely because they are challenged on factual grounds.

---