https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156498 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. en-us Mon, 23 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:14:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156498 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. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 23 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156498