Revisional jurisdiction limited to the existing record; rule permitting fresh evidence was ultra vires to that extent.

Section 12(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 confines revisional jurisdiction to the record of the subordinate proceeding, so the revisional authority cannot go beyond that record or rely on fresh evidence. Rule 14-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939, insofar as it permitted a wider enquiry to determine the correct tax, was inconsistent with the Act because delegated rule-making could not enlarge the statutory revisional power. The rule was therefore ultra vires to that extent, and revisional orders founded on evidence outside the record could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional authority under section 12(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, could base its revisional order on fresh evidence, and whether rule 14-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939, was valid to the extent it permitted such an enquiry.

Analysis: Section 12(2) confines revisional power to examination of the record of an order passed or proceeding recorded by a subordinate authority. On that construction, the revisional authority cannot travel beyond the existing record or collect and act upon fresh evidence. Although rule 14-A authorised the appellate or revising authority to determine the correct tax after making such enquiry as it considered necessary, that wider power could not stand where it conflicted with the limiting words of section 12(2). The rule-making power under section 19 could not be used to enlarge the statutory revisional jurisdiction contrary to the Act itself, and rule 14-A was therefore inconsistent with section 12(2) to that extent.

Conclusion: Rule 14-A was ultra vires in so far as it permitted the revisional authority to proceed on fresh evidence beyond the record, and the revisional orders based on such evidence could not be sustained.

---