Revisional jurisdiction and settled statutory construction: an erroneous view of maintainability can be corrected, and revision may proceed on merits.

A long-settled construction of section 34 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was left undisturbed: a revision was not treated as barred merely because an earlier appeal had been dismissed as time-barred, and repeated legislative amendments without change supported that interpretation. The revisional power was also recognised as a remedy to correct injustice, so either party could bring an error to the Board of Revenue's notice. Where the Board refused to act on an erroneous view that the revision was incompetent, that refusal was open to judicial correction. The revision petitions were therefore to be entertained and considered on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a revision under section 34 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was barred because the assessee's earlier appeal had been dismissed as time-barred; and (ii) whether the assessee could move the Board of Revenue to invoke its revisional jurisdiction.

Issue (i): whether a revision under section 34 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was barred because the assessee's earlier appeal had been dismissed as time-barred.

Analysis: The expression "the order has been made the subject of an appeal" was urged to exclude a time-barred appeal, but the Court declined to unsettle the interpretation that had prevailed since the earlier High Court ruling and had governed the field for years. The statute had been repeatedly amended without disturbing that construction, and the Court treated the long-accepted position as one that should not be reopened at that late stage.

Conclusion: The settled construction was left undisturbed, and the challenge to the Board's jurisdiction failed.

Issue (ii): whether the assessee could move the Board of Revenue to invoke its revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis: The revisional power was described as one conferred to remedy injustice, and either party could bring an error of subordinate authorities to the Board's notice. Once the Board refused to act only because it wrongly thought the revision was incompetent, that refusal was vitiated by an apparent error and was open to correction.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to move the Board, and the High Court was justified in interfering with the Board's erroneous refusal to exercise jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were rejected, leaving intact the direction that the revision petitions be entertained and considered on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority's refusal to exercise jurisdiction on an erroneous view of maintainability is open to judicial correction, and a long-settled statutory construction accepted by the legislature should not be disturbed in collateral proceedings absent legislative change.

---