Review power by office-holder extends to predecessor's orders when the statute imposes no express restriction.

A review power conferred on a Commissioner by designation, rather than personal identity, extended to orders made by a predecessor-in-office where the statute and rule contained no express restriction. The Court read Section 22(6) of the Sales Tax Act as authorising review by the office-holder appointed under Section 3, and treated the absence of limiting language as decisive. A different wording in the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act supported this distinction. The impugned review order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner, acting under Section 22(6) of the Sales Tax Act, could review an order passed by his predecessor-in-office.

Analysis: The review provision and the relevant rule contained no distinction between an order passed by the incumbent officer and an order passed by a predecessor. The wording referred to the person appointed under Section 3 by office or designation, not by personal identity. In the absence of an express restriction, the power of review could not be treated as confined only to orders made by the same individual who later seeks to review them. The contrast with the differently worded provision in the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act reinforced this reading.

Conclusion: The Commissioner could review an order passed by his predecessor-in-office, and the contrary view was incorrect.

Final Conclusion: The impugned review order was set aside and the matter was remitted for decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers review power on an officer by designation and does not expressly exclude predecessor orders, the successor in office may review orders made by the predecessor.

---