Revisional power under repealed sales tax law survived saving provisions, allowed further inquiry, and was not time-barred.

The SC explained that a revisional notice under the Bombay Sales Tax law survived repeal where the 1959 saving provisions preserved pre-repeal assessment and incidental proceedings, so the notice remained valid despite reference to the wrong statutory provision. It further held that suo motu revisional power was not confined to the existing record alone: where prima facie error appeared, the revising authority could direct or hold a further inquiry without exceeding its jurisdiction. The Court also held that no limitation period or implied requirement of action within a reasonable time barred the revision, because the relevant enactments prescribed none.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a revisional notice issued under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 remained valid after repeal of that Act by the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and whether the revisional power could be exercised in respect of an assessment governed by the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946; (ii) whether the revisional authority could look beyond the existing record and direct or hold a further inquiry while exercising suo motu revisional power; (iii) whether the revisional proceedings were barred by lapse of time or by any implied requirement of exercise within a reasonable period.

Issue (i): Whether a revisional notice issued under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 remained valid after repeal of that Act by the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and whether the revisional power could be exercised in respect of an assessment governed by the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946.

Analysis: The saving provisions in sections 77(1)(a) and 77(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 preserved the earlier sales tax laws and the proceedings connected with levy, assessment, reassessment, collection, refund and incidental matters for periods prior to the appointed day. The Court held that the repeal did not extinguish the revisional power in relation to the earlier assessment. It further held that, for an order made under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, the correct source of revisional authority was section 22 of that Act, though the incorrect citation of section 31 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 in the notice did not by itself defeat jurisdiction, because the substance of the power survived under the earlier enactment.

Conclusion: The revisional notice was not invalid on the ground of repeal or wrong statutory reference, and the proceeding was maintainable in respect of the earlier assessment.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional authority could look beyond the existing record and direct or hold a further inquiry while exercising suo motu revisional power.

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that revisional jurisdiction is not confined to a mechanical scrutiny of the existing record in every case. Where the revising authority has prima facie material showing that the order under revision is erroneous or improper, it may direct or hold a further inquiry, provided it does not trench upon powers specifically reserved to other statutory authorities. The notice in question disclosed a statutory basis for doubt about the correctness of the exemption granted, and the Court found no legal bar to a further inquiry to test whether the despatched goods included taxable elements covered by the relevant proviso.

Conclusion: The revisional authority was entitled to initiate proceedings and, if necessary, seek further inquiry while exercising revisional power.

Issue (iii): Whether the revisional proceedings were barred by lapse of time or by any implied requirement of exercise within a reasonable period.

Analysis: The Court held that neither section 22 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 nor section 31 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 prescribed any limitation for suo motu revision. The saving and continuation provisions also preserved the remedy notwithstanding repeal. The Court declined to read into the statute a judicially created period of limitation where the legislature had not enacted one, and distinguished authorities dealing with reassessment or different statutory schemes. The long lapse of time might affect the evidence available to the assessee, but that circumstance did not destroy jurisdiction to issue the notice.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not time-barred and no implied limitation period invalidated the notice.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the revisional notice failed on every ground. The statutory power of revision survived repeal, was exercisable under the saving provisions for the earlier assessment, could be supported by further inquiry if needed, and was not defeated by delay. The appeal accordingly did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A saved revisional power under a repealed sales tax law may continue to be exercised for pre-repeal assessments, the revising authority may direct further inquiry where prima facie error appears, and no limitation can be implied where the statute prescribes none.

---