ORDER This application under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated the 8th August, 1953, refusing to entertain the petitioner's appeal on the ground that no such appeal lay. 2. In order to appreciate the question for determination in this application it is necessary to state the following facts :- The petitioner owns a concern which manufactures udbattis. The Sales Tax Officer, Sagar, started assessment proceeding being Assessment Case No. 11 of 1948-49. He assessed Rs. 3,460 odd as sales tax on the firm for the period 1st October, 1947, to 31st March, 1949. Rs. 1,442 was paid out of the tax thus assessed. The petitioner applied for a review of the order of assessment. The review application was dismissed on the 12th June, 1952. The petitioner then preferred an appeal to the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner, Jabalpur. Ultimately that appeal stood dismissed. Against that order of dismissal the petitioner made an application in revision to the Sales Tax Commissioner, Nagpur, which was registered as Revision Petition No. 205 of 1952. That revision petition was not entertained by the Commissioner by his order dated the 19th December, 1952. The petitioner then applied for restoration of his revision application, which was also dismissed in the 4th February, 1953. It is not necessary to consider the grounds of those orders. Against the orders of the Sales Tax Commissioner aforesaid the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Board of Revenue being Revenue Appeal No. 31/XXXIII-7 of 1953. That appeal was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on the 8th August, 1953, on the ground that the appeal was not competent. It is against this order that this application has been moved. 3. Part X of the Rules framed under section 28 of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (XXX of 1947) deals with appeals revision and review. Rule 53(4) is in these terms :- "An appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner shall lie to the Board of Revenue." The rule framed in such wide terms does not admit of any qualifications or reservations. In the instant case the appeal filed by the petitioner was against an order of the Commissioner, and there is no reason to limit the words of sub-rule (4) quoted above so as to deprive the petitioner of his right of appeal. In the instant case the appeal filed by the petitioner was against an order of the Commissioner, and there is no reason to limit the words of sub-rule (4) quoted above so as to deprive the petitioner of his right of appeal. But the learned President of the Board of Revenue, who appears to have passed orders in chamber, took the view that as there has already been one appeal against the order of assessment further proceedings could only be taken by way of revision. Apparently, he has lost sight of rule 53(4), which has given a right of appeal against any order passed by the Commissioner to the Board of Revenue. In our opinion, therefore, the view taken by the Board is against the rules framed by the Government. The summary rejection of the appeal on the ground that no appeal lay is apparently unwarranted by law. In the last paragraph of his order the President, Board of Revenue, has added that the petition is time-barred. But we are informed that an application for condoning the delay had also been filed, and apparently that application has not been considered on its merits. 4. The orders passed by the Board of Revenue are set aside, and it is directed that the petitioner be heard on the appeal with special reference to his application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. We are not here concerned with the merits of the application or of the appeal, and naturally therefore we have refrained from expressing any opinion on those matters. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Hearing fee Rs. 50. He is further entitled to a refund of the outstanding amount of the security deposited by him. Application allowed.