Limitation for suo motu sales tax revision runs from communication of the order revised, not from assessee-driven merger

Section 12(4)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act computed the four-year limitation from communication of the order sought to be revised. Suo motu revision by the department was distinct from revision at the assessee's instance, and the assessee's earlier revision on specific items did not enlarge the Board's revisional power or make the Deputy Commissioner's order the operative order for limitation purposes. The doctrine of merger was not applied in the manner urged by the revenue, because the Board was revising the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer's revised assessment. The Board's suo motu revision was therefore barred by limitation and incompetent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Board of Revenue could validly exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction after the expiry of the four-year limitation period prescribed by section 12(4)(b) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, and whether the earlier revision by the assessee caused the original assessment order to merge with the Deputy Commissioner's order for the purpose of computing limitation.

Analysis: Section 12(4)(b) fixed limitation with reference to the order sought to be revised and the date of communication of that order to the assessee. The revisional power under section 12 was held to be distinct in its two modes of exercise: suo motu revision by the department and revision at the instance of the assessee. The Court held that the assessee's revision seeking relief on specific items did not enlarge the subject-matter of the Board's suo motu power so as to make the Deputy Commissioner's order the operative order for limitation purposes. The doctrine of merger was held not to apply in the manner suggested by the revenue, because the Board was not revising the Deputy Commissioner's order but the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer's revised assessment, and the limitation period had to run from the communication of that assessment order.

Conclusion: The Board's suo motu revision was barred by limitation and was incompetent; the assessee succeeded on the preliminary ground.

---