MODERN MACHINERY STORE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the assessee under the provisions of sec. 14 (2) of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are as follows: - The Sales-tax Officer, Alwar assessed the tax on machinery for the year 1958-59 on 5. 5. 61. The assessee aggrieved by the order of the Sales Tax Officer went in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner Appeals (Sales Tax), Jaipur. The preliminary objection was raised before the appellate court that the copy attached with the memo of appeal was not a certified copy and appeal is incomplete. The learned Deputy Commissioner held the objection to be valid and consequently rejected the appeal holding that as the copy of the order accompanying the memo of appeal is not a certified copy, hence the appeal is incompetent. The assessee aggrieved by the appellate order of the learned Deputy Commissioner Appeals Sales Tax Jaipur dated 11. 12. 61 has come up in this revision in the Board of Revenue.

(2.) AS per amendment in rule 8 of the Revenue Courts Manual part I vide Notification No. F. 68/judl/br/9463-9492, dated 26th June, 1963 this revision has come up before me in the single bench. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The copy submitted by the petitioner along with the memo of appeal bears the signatures of the Sales Tax Officer as original. This signature is not on the endorsement. The copies bearing such signature have been held to be valid certified copies which are to be entertained along with the memo of appeal as per full bench decision of the Board of Revenue reported in RRD 1962 page 30. I have personally seen the copy on the record which has been submitted by the assessee along with the memo of the appeal and I feel that it fulfils the provisions of rule 30 of Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules. The learned counsel for the State has also conceded on this point. I, therefore, accept the revision on this preliminary objection without going into the merit of the case, and set aside the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner dated 11. 1. 61 and remand the case with the direction that the appeal be heard on merits. .