Suo motu revisional power may be requested by an aggrieved assessee; refund relief remains premature until revision is decided.

Suo motu revisional power is not confined to the authority's own initiative; an aggrieved assessee may request consideration of whether that power should be exercised where illegality or irregularity is alleged in a subordinate order. The Deputy Commissioner's view that such revision could not be invoked on application was rejected. A refund direction was not granted at that stage because it depended on the outcome of the revision request and was therefore premature.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner could refuse to consider the assessee's request to exercise suo motu revisional power under section 32 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and whether a refund direction could be granted at that stage.

Analysis: The power of revision described as suo motu does not mean that the authority can act only on its own spontaneous satisfaction and cannot be moved by an aggrieved assessee to consider whether the power should be exercised. Where a subordinate order is alleged to suffer from illegality or irregularity, the authority vested with revisional jurisdiction must consider the request and decide whether to invoke that power. Since the Deputy Commissioner declined to act on the footing that the power could not be invoked on application, that view was rejected. The request for refund was not taken up, as it depended upon the Deputy Commissioner's decision on revision and was therefore premature.

Conclusion: The assessee's request for consideration of revisional power under section 32 was upheld, but the claim for refund was not granted at that stage.

---