PURUSHOTTAM SITARAM TIKLE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner agrees that, in effect, the application made to the Sales Tax Commissioner was one for review of his own order, which had been upheld in appeal by a superior authority, namely, the Board of Revenue. The learned Commissioner has acted rightly in declining to grant the application. Any action to the contrary on his part would have been illegal, on the analogy of the general legal principles stated in Section 40(3) of the C.P. Land Revenue Act or Section 39(3) of the Berar Land Revenue Code.

(2.) THE so-called appeal is misconceived and is rejected.