Suo motu revisional power under sales tax law extends to both sides, but no duty to grant belated exemption claim.

The Deputy Commissioner's suo motu revisional power under section 32 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was held wide enough to correct illegality or impropriety in an assessment order in favour of either the revenue or the assessee, subject to the statutory limits. However, the authority was not bound to revise the assessment to grant exemption for turnover said to relate to works contracts where no such claim had been raised in the assessment proceedings and the assessee had treated the turnover as taxable. The refusal to grant exemption was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Deputy Commissioner's suo motu revisional power under section 32 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 extended to correcting an assessment order in favour of the assessee as well as the revenue. (ii) Whether the Deputy Commissioner was bound to exercise that revisional power to grant exemption for turnover said to relate to works contracts when no such claim had been made in the assessment proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the Deputy Commissioner's suo motu revisional power under section 32 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 extended to correcting an assessment order in favour of the assessee as well as the revenue.

Analysis: The revisional provision was held to confer a wide power enabling the Deputy Commissioner to call for and examine specified orders and to pass such order as he thought fit, subject to the statutory limitations. That power was not confined to the benefit of the revenue alone. It could be exercised to rectify illegality or impropriety in the assessment order in favour of either side, provided the conditions in the section were satisfied and the revisional authority did not trench upon powers reserved to other authorities.

Conclusion: Yes. The suo motu revisional power extended to both the revenue and the assessee for correcting error or illegality in the assessment order.

Issue (ii): Whether the Deputy Commissioner was bound to exercise that revisional power to grant exemption for turnover said to relate to works contracts when no such claim had been made in the assessment proceedings.

Analysis: The assessee had itself returned the turnover as taxable and had not raised the plea of exemption before the assessing authority. The assessment therefore did not suffer from illegality on that score, and the assessee had acquiesced in the assessment by not appealing against it. The claim for exemption was also found to be belated and unsupported by the conduct of the assessee during the assessment proceedings. In these circumstances, refusal to revise the assessment in favour of the assessee did not suffer from infirmity.

Conclusion: No. The Deputy Commissioner was not bound to grant the exemption, and his refusal was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the revisional power was broad enough to benefit an assessee in a proper case, but the assessee here was not entitled to relief on the facts, so the adverse order stood.

Ratio Decidendi: The suo motu revisional power of the Deputy Commissioner under the Act is wide enough to correct illegality or impropriety in favour of either party, but it does not compel intervention where the assessee failed to claim the exemption in the assessment proceedings and the assessment was not shown to be illegal.

---