Late retest request beyond the prescribed period was not condoned; denial upheld on the assessee's own conduct and awareness.

A late request for retest made beyond the 90-day period under Rule 56(4) was not condoned where the only explanation was ignorance of the time limit. The assessee, a large textile mill with quality-control facilities, was treated as having sufficient awareness of the retest right, and its own conduct undermined the plea for relief. On those facts, denial of retest was upheld and the demand was not disturbed. The analysis also noted that it was unnecessary to decide whether the 90-day period was strictly mandatory in every case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the denial of retest on the ground that the request was made beyond the 90-day period under Rule 56(4) vitiated the demand and entitled the assessee to relief.

Analysis: The request for retest was made after the prescribed period and the only explanation offered was ignorance of the time limit. The appellants were a large and established textile mill with quality-control facilities, and their own conduct showed awareness of the rule conferring a right to seek retest. On these facts, the plea for condonation was not accepted, and it was found unnecessary to decide whether the 90-day period was strictly mandatory in every case.

Conclusion: The denial of retest did not warrant interference with the lower authorities' orders, and the contention was rejected.

---