Revisional right cannot survive without a statutory forum, and a removal-of-difficulties clause cannot revive it.

A writ could not be issued to compel appointment of a Commissioner of Sales Tax to hear revision petitions under the repealed Cochin General Sales Tax Act when the revisional forum had ceased to exist. The court treated the right of revision as dependent on the existence of a competent statutory forum, and held that the abolition of that forum without substitution meant the revisional right could not survive in the manner sought. Section 25 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act was held to be only a limited removal-of-difficulties provision for that Act, not a source of power to revive revisional machinery under the repealed Cochin Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ could be issued to compel the State Government to appoint a Commissioner of Sales Tax so that revision petitions under section 18 of the Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1121, could be heard after the revisional forum had ceased to exist, and whether section 25 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, could be invoked for that purpose.

Analysis: The right to seek revision was considered in the context of the repeal of the Cochin Act and the subsequent abolition of the authority that had been appointed to entertain revisions. The earlier arrangement made under the Travancore-Cochin Act to remove administrative difficulty did not create a continuing power to revive a forum for revisional proceedings under the repealed Cochin Act. The court applied the principle that where the forum competent to hear a revision is abolished without any substituted forum, the corresponding revisional right does not survive. Section 25 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125, was treated as a limited enabling provision confined to difficulties in giving effect to that Act and not as a source of power to deal with revisional machinery under the Cochin Act.

Conclusion: The request for mandamus failed, and the petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The court held that the discontinued revisional forum could not be recreated through the removal of difficulties provision, and the revisional petitions under the repealed enactment could not be kept alive in the manner sought.

Ratio Decidendi: When the statutory forum for revision is abolished without substitution, the revisional right does not survive, and a removal of difficulties clause in a successor statute cannot be used to revive that forum for the repealed enactment.

---