Affidavit of service non-compliance and no appellate error justified rejection of the Revenue's revision.

Persistent non-compliance with the procedural requirement to serve the revision and file an affidavit of service justified rejection of the Revenue's revision, because the rules allowed delayed filing only for sufficient reason and no affidavit was filed for years after institution. The appellate order was also left undisturbed because no material error of fact or law was shown in the findings recorded by the appellate authority. On both procedural and substantive grounds, the revision failed and the assessee's partial relief remained intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision was liable to be rejected for non-compliance with the requirement of filing an affidavit of service under Chapter 27 Rule 5(2) of the High Court Rules, 1952. (ii) Whether the appellate order suffered from any error of fact or law warranting interference in revision.

Issue (i): Whether the revision was liable to be rejected for non-compliance with the requirement of filing an affidavit of service under Chapter 27 Rule 5(2) of the High Court Rules, 1952.

Analysis: The revision was filed by the Revenue, and the governing rules required service of the revision on the assessee with an affidavit of service. Although the rule permitted delayed filing of the affidavit for sufficient reason, no affidavit of service was filed for several years after institution of the revision. The continuing default meant that the revision had not been instituted and pursued in the manner prescribed by the applicable procedural rules.

Conclusion: The revision was rightly rejected for non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirement, and this conclusion was against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate order suffered from any error of fact or law warranting interference in revision.

Analysis: The appellate authority had recorded findings of fact and allowed the assessee's appeal partly. No material was shown to demonstrate any infirmity in those findings or any legal error in the appellate decision. On the merits, the revision presented no basis for interference.

Conclusion: No error of fact or law was shown in the appellate order, so the revision failed on merits as well, against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The revision was not maintainable in the manner presented and, independently, disclosed no merit for interference, leaving the assessee's partial relief undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a procedural rule requires service of the revision and filing of an affidavit of service, persistent non-compliance can justify rejection of the revision, and a revisional court will not interfere absent any demonstrated error of fact or law in the appellate order.

---