Suo motu revision limitation: a dealer's request to invoke revisional discretion is not barred by the ordinary revision period.

A dealer may place facts and materials before the revising authority to invite consideration of suo motu revision under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. Such a communication is not treated as an ordinary dealer's revision application, so the 60-day limitation under rule 80(2) does not apply; the relevant period for suo motu action is the four-year limit under rule 80(5). The authority must independently decide whether to exercise its discretion on the facts. Rejecting the request as time-barred under the shorter dealer-revision limitation was therefore illegal, and the revisional order was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a dealer's request could be treated as a request for the revising authority to exercise suo motu revisional power under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and whether such a request could be rejected as time-barred by applying the limitation applicable to an ordinary dealer's revision application.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 20(3) is of two kinds: revision on application by a dealer and revision suo motu by the authority itself. Rule 80(2) governs an application for revision by a dealer and prescribes a 60-day period, whereas rule 80(5) governs exercise of suo motu revision and permits action within four years from the assessment sought to be revised. The Court held that a dealer may bring relevant facts and materials to the notice of the revising authority and that such a communication does not cease to be a request for the authority to consider whether it should act on its own motion. The authority must decide whether to exercise its discretion on the facts of the case, but the mere presentation of information by the assessee does not attract the 60-day limitation meant for an appeal-like revision application.

Conclusion: The rejection of the petition as time-barred was illegal and improper, and the order was liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in obtaining quashing of the revisional order, while the revising authority was left free to proceed according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer may place facts before the revising authority to invite consideration of suo motu revision, and such a request is not governed by the limitation applicable to a dealer's own revision application.

---