IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8090 of 2008 BHARAT PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Choudhary Shyamnandan, Advocate For the respondents : Mrs. Nilu Agrawal,G.A.10 ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal Dated, the 15th July, 2008. By the order dated 6th June, 2001, the respondent no.4 passed an order of assessment for the year 1997-98. By the said order the sales tax was assessed at Rs.44,855.20 and demand was raised. A revision application seems to have been filed from that order before the Commissioner, Commercial taxes, Bihar, Patna. However, the revisional authority found that the revision application was neither signed by the assessee, nor any vakalatnama was filed. The revision application was, thus, found incompetent in law. Consequently it came to be dismissed on 12th of March, 2008. It is this order which is impugned in this writ petition. 2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision application remained unsigned by the petitioner and vakalatnama was - 2 - not filed because of the fault of the advocate and, therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the revisional authority. He further submits that since the Commissioner also observed that there was no justifiable ground to revise the order dated 06.01.2001 without consideration of the matter on merit, the matter may be remitted back to the assessing officer. 3. We are not persuaded by the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. That the revision application was not signed by the petitioner is not in dispute. That no vakalatnama was filed along with the revision application is also not in dispute. Thus, the revisional authority cannot be said to have erred in holding that the revision application before him was not competent. Except the contention that the assessing officer passed an ex parte order, nothing has been shown on merit to justify the remand of the matter either to the assessing officer or to the revisional authority. 4. We have no justifiable ground to admit this writ appliction. It is dismissed in limine. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil