Review jurisdiction and section 24 powers: no apparent error found where assessee bore the burden of proving tax payment by commission agent.

Delay in filing the review application was condoned, but the court found no error apparent on the face of the earlier judgment concerning exemption under section 9B(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. It held that the earlier view placing the burden on the assessee to show that tax had been paid by the commission agent was not inconsistent with the observation that the assessing or appellate authority may, where necessary, use powers under section 24 to ascertain the truth. Those powers were discretionary, not mandatory in every case, and the assessee had no right to compel their exercise. The review was therefore not maintainable on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review application disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier judgment on exemption under section 9B(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, read with the scope of powers under section 24 of that Act.

Analysis: The delay in filing the review was condoned. On merits, the earlier view that the burden lay on the assessee to show that tax had been paid by the commission agent was not inconsistent with the observation that the assessing authority or appellate authority may, where necessary, use the powers under section 24 to ascertain the truth. Those powers were not mandatory in every case and the assessee could not compel their exercise as a matter of right. The judgment therefore contained no inconsistency or apparent error warranting review.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was shown, and the review application was not maintainable on merits.

---