Suo Motu Revision and Natural Justice: staff notes may trigger action, but prejudging the issue invalidates quasi-judicial fairness.

A revisional authority exercising quasi-judicial power may initiate suo motu revision on the basis of an internal note or staff briefing, provided it independently applies its mind to the material before issuing notice; the Court therefore corrected the Tribunal's view that use of an office note could not amount to suo motu action. However, the authority must remain impartial throughout the revision process, and a pre-committed decision before considering the affected party's objections offends natural justice. The Court found that the Deputy Commissioner had prejudged the matter, disapproved that conduct, and the revision failed overall, although the Tribunal's factual finding on the turnover issue was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Deputy Commissioner could validly initiate suo motu revision under section 20 on the basis of information supplied by office staff and still be said to have acted on his own motion. (ii) Whether the revision was vitiated because the Deputy Commissioner had prejudged the matter and failed to act impartially before passing the final order.

Issue (i): Whether the Deputy Commissioner could validly initiate suo motu revision under section 20 on the basis of information supplied by office staff and still be said to have acted on his own motion.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 20 is supervisory and quasi-judicial. The Court held that the authority need not personally scrutinise every subordinate order without assistance, and may act on a factual note or briefing prepared by the staff, audit, or other internal sources. What matters is whether the Deputy Commissioner applied his own mind to the material before issuing notice, not whether the trigger came from office assistance.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was wrong in holding that action taken after considering an office note could not be regarded as suo motu revision.

Issue (ii): Whether the revision was vitiated because the Deputy Commissioner had prejudged the matter and failed to act impartially before passing the final order.

Analysis: A revisional authority acting quasi-judicially must observe natural justice and approach the matter with an unbiased mind. The Court found that the Deputy Commissioner's letter to the Board of Revenue showed that he had already made up his mind to confirm the revision before considering the assessee's objections, which was inconsistent with impartial adjudication and amounted to serious impropriety. At the same time, the Court accepted the Tribunal's factual finding that there was no material to interfere with the conclusion on the gunny-bag turnover issue.

Conclusion: The Deputy Commissioner acted improperly by prejudging the issue, but no interference was called for with the Tribunal's factual finding on the merits.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed overall, even though the Tribunal's legal view on the meaning of suo motu was corrected and the Deputy Commissioner's conduct was disapproved.

Ratio Decidendi: For a quasi-judicial revisional power, the authority may rely on staff notes or other information so long as it independently applies its mind; however, any pre-commitment of the decision before hearing the affected party offends natural justice.

---