Revisional jurisdiction under sales tax law upheld, and relief under statutory revision was not treated as ex gratia.

The revisional power under section 12(3)(ii) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 was read broadly to preserve the Board of Revenue's supervisory jurisdiction over orders of subordinate officers, and section 12-A on appellate remedies was treated as not curtailing that power. The relief obtained through revision was therefore held to be statutory, not ex gratia, because the application was processed as a revision, delay was excused, and the assessment was revised under the Board's direction. The appeals failed, as the relief was traceable to the Act and not to any extra-statutory indulgence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Board of Revenue had revisional jurisdiction under section 12(3)(ii) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 to revise the assessment order of the assessing authority on an application by the assessee. (ii) Whether the relief granted in the proceedings was merely ex gratia or was a relief within the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the Board of Revenue had revisional jurisdiction under section 12(3)(ii) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 to revise the assessment order of the assessing authority on an application by the assessee.

Analysis: The revisional scheme under section 12 conferred power on the Commercial Tax Officer, the Deputy Commissioner and the Board of Revenue, and the highest revisional authority was not intended to be confined in a narrow or artificial manner. Though the language of section 12(3)(ii) was infelicitous, a disjunctive reading was adopted to give effect to the legislative intention that the Board could examine and revise orders passed by officers subordinate to it. Section 12-A, dealing with appeals to the Appellate Tribunal, only reflected the availability of alternative remedies and did not curtail the Board's revisional power under section 12(3).

Conclusion: The Board of Revenue had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the revision application against the assessment order.

Issue (ii): Whether the relief granted in the proceedings was merely ex gratia or was a relief within the Act.

Analysis: The materials before the Board showed that the application was treated as one invoking statutory revision, delay was excused, and the assessment was revised pursuant to the Board's direction. Relief granted through statutory revision is distinct from an ex gratia grant outside the Act, and the consequential revision of assessment by the assessing authority confirmed that the matter proceeded under the statutory framework.

Conclusion: The relief was not ex gratia and was granted within the four corners of the Act.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the impugned relief was traceable to the statutory revisional power of the Board of Revenue and not to any extra-statutory indulgence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the language of a revisional provision is capable of a construction that preserves the effective supervisory power of the highest statutory authority, that construction should be preferred, and relief granted pursuant to such statutory revision cannot be treated as ex gratia.

---