1985 (7) TMI 338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at it had been filed 5 days after the period of limitation. Mr. Bhagwati Pershad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that rule 66(2) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), which provides for limitation for filing of application for revision is ultra vires the Act. The contention is that under the power to make rules as per section 26 of the Act, the Chief Commissioner had no authority to lay down the period of limitation for filing of the applications covered under sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Act.   Section 20 of the Act provides for appeals, revisions and reviews under the Act. The relevant provision under which application for revision can be entertained is contained i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....od." According to the petitioner the first application by way of revision had been filed by it before the Commissioner of Sales Tax within the period prescribed. Thereafter the second revision application was filed to the Chief Commissioner but beyond the period of limitation. The Financial Commissioner, who has been delegated the powers of the Chief Commissioner, had no occasion to consider the question of extension of time or condonation of delay as no application was filed before him along with the revision application and hence the impugned order. In a nutshell, the contention of the petitioner is that the above-quoted sub-rule which lays down the time-limit for filing of application for revision is without jurisdiction as unde....