TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Deputy Commissioner could rely only on the record of the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner or could also take into account material seized by the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, which was not part of that record.
Analysis: The revisional power was confined to examining the legality or propriety of the order under revision on the basis of the record of the subordinate proceeding. Material not forming part of that record could not be used to initiate revision. The additional material seized by the Enforcement Branch was dehors the record before the Assistant Commissioner and could not validly furnish the foundation for invoking revisional jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The Deputy Commissioner could consider only the record of the proceeding before the Assistant Commissioner and could not rely on material outside that record for initiating suo motu revision. This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction under section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 must be exercised on the basis of the record of the subordinate proceeding, and extraneous material not forming part of that record cannot be used to initiate revision.
TaxTMI 
