SHOBHA SARIA ENGINEERING COLLEGE Vs. COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The counsel for the petitioner-college submits that the Rajasthan Tax Board vide its order dated December 1, 2011, has mechanically dismissed the petitioner's appeal under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter "the Act of 2003") without addressing the merits and submissions thereon of the petitioner-college. Counsel would submit that for a remedy of appeal to be a real remedy, it was incumbent upon the Rajasthan Tax Board to have addressed the case of the petitioner on the merits and passed a reasoned order. It has been submitted that the petitioner-college has a very substantial case inasmuch as it is claimed that under the Act of 2003, the petitioner-college did not fall within the definition of "dealer" under section 2(11), nor could the petitioner-college be stated to be engaged in the "business" as defined under section 2(6) of the Act of 2003. Counsel for the respondent would submit that a revision petition under section 84 of the Act of 2003 is not maintainable against an interim order upheld in appeal. He submits that a revision petition before this court under section 84 of the Act of 2003 is maintainable only where a question of law is involved and not otherwise. The submission is that the petitioner-college had approached the Rajasthan Tax Board on having partially failed on its interim application before the appellate authority. It is submitted that while the substantial issue is pending before the appellate authority, no question of law can be said to arise in the present revision petition.

(2.) Having heard the counsel for the parties and perused the revision petition, I am of the view that the appeals, to the Rajasthan Tax Board can only be filed under section 83 of the Act of 2003 and are adjudicated under section 83(10) which reads as under:

(3.) In the instant case an appeal was filed under section 83 of the Act of 2003 and has been dismissed--a revision is therefore maintainable under section 84 of the Act of 2003. I thus find no merit in the objection to the maintainability of the revision.