Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the order dated January 28, 2003 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna, in exercise of revisional power u/s. 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 by which he has rejected the revision application filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay in approaching him. 2. In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, it is not necessary to state facts in detail.. Suffice it to say that the petitioner is registered under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 , hereinafter referred to as "the Act" and assessment proceeding was initiated and ex parte order of assessment had been passed on January 28, 2000 u/s. 17(3) of the Act for the assessment year 1997-98. The petitioner did not challenge the said order in appeal. The petitioner filed revision application in December, 2002. 3. It is admitted at the bar that no period is prescribed for filing revision application before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The stand of the petitioner before the revisional authority was that form IX-C was not available at the time of assessment and as such the same could not be produced. Later on, form IX-C were made available by the selling dealer on May 28, 2001, i.e., more than a year after passing of the order and thereafter the person who was looking after the matter fell seriously ill, as a result of which revision application was filed in December, 2002. 4. Learned Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has not doubted the fact that form IX-C was made available at the later stage and that the person looking after the cases was seriously ill, but rejected the application on the ground that when the person, who was in-charge of the affairs of the petitioner was ill, then somebody else should have pursued the matter. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration two grounds stated on behalf of the petitioner which have not been disbelieved by the revisional authority, we are of the view that the revisional authority should not have rejected the revision application on the ground of delay specially when law does not prescribe any period of limitation. The explanation given by the petitioner cannot be said to be unreasonable. The explanation given by the petitioner cannot be said to be unreasonable. The illness of the employee of the petitioner who was looking after the case appears to be serious one as it was a case of kidney transplantation. Thus, the impugned order passed by the revisional authority, as contained in annexure 1, is quashed and the matter is remitted to the revisional authority to consider it afresh on merit in accordance with law. In the result, this writ application is allowed.