Revisional limitation under tax law runs to the final order, and excluded periods did not save the delayed revision.

Section 13 of the Gujarat Entertainments Tax Act, 1977 was construed as imposing a two-year outer limit for passing a revisional order, not merely for issuing the revisional notice. The Explanation allowed exclusion only of the period during which the record could not be called for under the proviso and the period during which revision proceedings were stayed by a civil court order or injunction. On the facts, the period when the record could not be called for was excluded, but the civil court orders did not prevent the revisional authority from deciding the matter on merits, so the final revisional order was still made beyond the permissible period. The revisional order was therefore barred by limitation and could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional notice and the consequential order under section 13 of the Gujarat Entertainments Tax Act, 1977 were barred by limitation under sub-section (2), read with the exclusion clauses in the Explanation.

Analysis: Section 13(1) empowered the State Government to call for and examine the record of proceedings for revision, while the proviso restricted calling for the record where an appeal was pending or where the time for appeal had not expired. Section 13(2) provided that no order shall be revised after two years from the date of such order, and the Explanation directed exclusion of the period during which the record could not be called for under the proviso and the period during which revision proceedings were stayed by an order or injunction of a civil court. The Court held that the two-year period was the outer limit for passing the revisional order, not merely for initiating revision. On the facts, the period during which the record could not be called for was excluded, but the civil court orders did not restrain the revisional authority from passing the final order on merits, and the impugned revisional order was passed beyond the permissible two-year period.

Conclusion: The revisional order was barred by limitation and could not be sustained; the challenge succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes that no order shall be revised after a specified period and provides exclusions only for limited periods, the limitation operates as the outer time-limit for making the revisional order, and not merely for issuing notice, unless the statutory exclusions clearly apply.

---