Procedural rules for revision petitions are directory where meant for the applicant's benefit; substantial compliance can preserve validity.

Rule 69 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948 was treated as a procedural provision framed for the applicant's benefit rather than a rigid jurisdictional . Presentation of a revision petition through a peon of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, on the facts found, could amount to presentation by a duly authorised agent, and no written authority was required. Even if the mode of delivery was irregular, acceptance by the revising authority did not invalidate the revision proceedings because the rule was held directory and substantial compliance was sufficient.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a revision petition under rule 69 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948 was properly presented when it was delivered through a peon of the Commissioner of Sales Tax instead of being sent by registered post. (ii) Whether such mode of presentation, if irregular, vitiated the revision proceedings after acceptance by the revising authority.

Issue (i): Whether a revision petition under rule 69 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948 was properly presented when it was delivered through a peon of the Commissioner of Sales Tax instead of being sent by registered post.

Analysis: Section 10(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act confers revisional power but does not prescribe the mode of presenting a revision application. Rule 69(1) permits presentation by the applicant, a duly authorised agent or lawyer, or by registered post. The rule is framed for the applicant's benefit. A peon employed in the ordinary course of duty could be treated as a duly authorised agent on the facts found by the revising authority, and the law did not require such authority to be in writing.

Conclusion: The revision petition was properly presented and its presentation through the peon did not render it invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether such mode of presentation, if irregular, vitiated the revision proceedings after acceptance by the revising authority.

Analysis: Even assuming delivery through the peon was equivalent to delivery by ordinary post, rule 69(1) was held to be directory and not mandatory. Its object was to protect the applicant, not to create an inflexible jurisdictional condition. Therefore, acceptance of the revision petition by the revising authority did not invalidate the subsequent proceedings.

Conclusion: The acceptance of the revision petition did not vitiate the revision proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee, holding that the revision application was validly entertained and the revision proceedings remained effective.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural requirement governing the mode of presentation of a revision application, enacted for the applicant's benefit, is directory unless the statute makes compliance mandatory; substantial compliance is sufficient where the revising authority accepts the application and the presentation is by an authorised person.

---