P.D. Kudal, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 10th April, 1970.
2. This case has a chequered history. The relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that respondent No. 2 is the proprietor of M/s. Daulat Oil Mills, Jaipur. This concern was said to be a partnership concern and was dealing in the business of manufacture and sale of oil and oilcakes. The Commercial Taxes Officer issued a notice to the assessee-partnership firm, M/s. Daulat Oil Mills, under Section 10(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act for the accounting period 8th November, 1965, to 15th October, 1966. In response to the notice, on behalf-of the firm, it was contended that the partnership firm has been dissolved and, as such, the notice may be issued to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 was assessed to tax under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and an additional demand for a sum of Rs. 21,957.72 was created against respondent No. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that this order was appealable to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The assessee did not go in appeal but filed a revision directly before the Board of Revenue. It has been contended that because of the proviso to Section 14(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, a revision cannot be entertained by the Board if the dealer could have appealed under Section 13 of the Act and no appeal has been filed by him or if an appeal is pending before the appellate authority. This revision petition came up for hearing before the learned single Member, Board of Revenue, on 10th April, 1970, and, on behalf of the assessing authority, a specific objection was raised before the Board of Revenue that the revision was incompetent and that the only remedy available to the assessee was to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 13 of the Act. It was ordered by the Board of Revenue that this revision may be treated as an appeal having been filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the stay which was granted was ordered to be continued, till the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of this revision petition which has been treated to be heard and decided as an appeal. The assessing authority, thereafter, moved an application under Section 15(1) of the Act for making a reference to the High Court and enumerated the substantial questions of law which were involved. This application for reference could not be decided by the Board of Revenue within the statutory period of 180 days. Thereafter, the assessing authority moved a reference petition before this Court under Section 15(3A) of the Act. An objection was raised on behalf of the assessee that against the orders of the learned single Member a special appeal could lie under the provisions of Section 14(4A) and, as the remedy of special appeal has not been availed of, the present petition before this Court is not maintainable. Under these circumstances, the reference petition before this Court was withdrawn with permission to agitate the matter in the writ petition.
3. In the present writ petition it has been contended that the order of the Board of Revenue dated 10th April, 1970, is wholly without jurisdiction and that the order should be quashed.
4. On behalf of the assessee it has been contended that the writ petition has been filed as being extremely belated and that the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court should not be invoked at such a belated stage. It was also contended that as such events have taken place that extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court should not be invoked. The revision petition which was filed before the Board was sent to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to be heard as an appeal. The assessee had also filed an appeal; both these appeals were tagged together by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and were decided. Against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) a revision has been filed which is pending before the Board of Revenue. Under such circumstances, it has been contended on behalf of the assessee that no useful purpose will be served by setting at naught the entire position.
5. The respective contentions of the parties have been considered and the record of the case has been carefully perused. The Board of Revenue exercised its limited jurisdiction while exercising powers of revision under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. This power of revision is wholly different from the powers of revision which the Board of Revenue exercises under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The Board of Revenue was definitely in error when it ordered on 10th April, 1970, that the revision petition filed before the Board may be sent to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and may be treated as an appeal there. The appeal filed by the assessee and the revision petion filed by him before the Board of Revenue which was sent to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) for being disposed of as an appeal, have both been disposed. The entire matter is now under revision before the Board of Revenue. No useful purpose would be served by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court will also not pass an order which will only be academic in nature and which would rather complicate the matter than solving the problem. The position of law has been stated, but it does not appear just and proper at this extremely belated stage to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and quash the orders dated 10th April, 1970. Under these circumstances, we decline to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The position of law has been stated and subject to the observations made above the writ petition is dismissed. However, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.