Revisional procedure can apply to earlier orders when it is procedural, preserves vested rights, and stays within limitation.

Section 22-B of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 was treated as procedural, not as imposing a new substantive burden or disturbing vested rights, so it could apply to revision of orders passed before its commencement. The Commissioner's revisional power was therefore available in respect of earlier assessment orders, provided the revisional order was made within the two-year limitation prescribed by the provision. The challenge based on section 11-A failed because that section governed reopening by the original assessing authority and did not restrict separate revisional jurisdiction. The order of remand was accordingly upheld as a valid exercise of revision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 22-B of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 applied to revision of orders passed before it came into force; (ii) Whether the Commissioner was justified in reopening the assessment and making an order of remand.

Issue (i): Whether section 22-B of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 applied to revision of orders passed before it came into force.

Analysis: The revised scheme introduced by the 1953 amendment replaced the earlier composite revisional framework and regulated the exercise of revisional power by the Commissioner. The provision did not create a new disability affecting vested rights or impose a new substantive burden on the assessee. It merely changed the procedure governing revision, while also introducing a limitation of two years from the date of the order sought to be revised. As the pre-existing orders were already subject to revision under the earlier law, the later provision could operate on orders passed before its commencement, provided the revisional order itself was made within the statutory period.

Conclusion: Section 22-B applied to orders passed before 1 December 1953, and the Commissioner could exercise revisional power in respect of such orders within two years of the order sought to be revised.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner was justified in reopening the assessment and making an order of remand.

Analysis: Since the revisional power under section 22-B was held to extend to the earlier assessment orders, the Commissioner had jurisdiction to interfere with those orders. The challenge based on section 11-A was rejected because that provision governed reopening by the original assessing authority and did not control the separate revisional power under section 22-B. The order of remand therefore stood on the same footing as the valid exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The order of remand was legally justified.

Final Conclusion: The references were answered in favour of the revenue, with the Commissioner's revisional action sustained and the assessee made liable for costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory provision regulating revisional procedure may be applied to pre-existing orders when it does not impair vested rights or impose a new substantive disability, and such revision remains valid if exercised within the limitation expressly prescribed by the later provision.

---