No prescribed limitation period: delay alone could not defeat revision, and the matter was remitted for merits reconsideration.

Where the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 prescribed no limitation period for filing a revision, the revisional authority could not reject the revision solely as delayed without a statutory basis. The explanation offered for the late filing-that the relevant form became available only later and that the responsible employee was seriously ill-was not doubted, and the delay was not shown to be unreasonable on that record. The rejection of the revision on delay was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional authority was justified in rejecting the revision application on the ground of delay when no period of limitation was prescribed under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981.

Analysis: The petitioner's explanation for the delayed filing was that the relevant form became available only later and that the employee handling the matter was seriously ill. These reasons were not doubted by the revisional authority. In the absence of a prescribed limitation period, the delay could not be rejected as unreasonable merely because another person could have pursued the matter.

Conclusion: The rejection of the revision application on the ground of delay was unsustainable. The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remitted to the revisional authority for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law.

---