https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173377 Rule 18's six-month limitation, confined to applications under Section 42 against an order, could not be extended by implication to revisions challenging confirmation of a consolidation scheme or repartition, so that limitation did not apply. Where no fixed period is prescribed, the revisional power must be exercised within a reasonable time assessed on the facts, and the delay here was adequately explained. The record also did not show that the Director's impugned order was a review of an earlier final order on the same subject, so the objection to lack of review power failed. en-us Tue, 24 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:59:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173377 Rule 18's six-month limitation, confined to applications under Section 42 against an order, could not be extended by implication to revisions challenging confirmation of a consolidation scheme or repartition, so that limitation did not apply. Where no fixed period is prescribed, the revisional power must be exercised within a reasonable time assessed on the facts, and the delay here was adequately explained. The record also did not show that the Director's impugned order was a review of an earlier final order on the same subject, so the objection to lack of review power failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 24 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173377