Revisional authority cannot extend limitation relief or stay protection when revision itself is incompetent and barred by appeal.

Where a revision is barred because an appeal lies under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, the revisional authority cannot issue ancillary directions affecting the appellate process. Time spent in pursuing an incompetent revision cannot be excluded by that authority for computing limitation for a future appeal; that question belongs to the appellate authority. The authority also cannot direct that a stay order passed in the incompetent revision continue until disposal of the appeal, because any interim relief granted in proceedings beyond jurisdiction cannot be extended after dismissal. Such ancillary directions were held invalid as beyond jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Board of Revenue could direct that the time spent in pursuing an incompetent revision would be excluded while computing limitation for filing the appeal; (ii) whether the Board of Revenue could direct that the stay order passed in the revision would continue until disposal of the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the Board of Revenue could direct that the time spent in pursuing an incompetent revision would be excluded while computing limitation for filing the appeal.

Analysis: A revision before the Board of Revenue was barred where an appeal lay under section 13 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, and the revision was therefore not maintainable. Once the revision itself could not be entertained, the Board lacked jurisdiction to pass ancillary directions affecting the computation of limitation for a future appeal. The question of exclusion of time was a matter for the appellate authority, not for the Board while dismissing the revision as not maintainable.

Conclusion: The direction excluding the time spent in the revision while computing limitation for the appeal was not permissible and was invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the Board of Revenue could direct that the stay order passed in the revision would continue until disposal of the appeal.

Analysis: Since the revision was not entertainable under the jurisdictional bar in section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, any order made in those proceedings was without jurisdiction beyond the dismissal of the revision. The Board could not extend the life of the stay order after holding that the revision itself was incompetent.

Conclusion: The direction continuing the stay order till disposal of the appeal was not permissible and was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, and both ancillary directions issued while dismissing the revision were set aside, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: When a revision is barred because an appeal lies, the revisional authority cannot issue ancillary directions affecting limitation or the continuance of interim relief in relation to the appeal, since such directions are beyond jurisdiction.

---