No implied limitation for review where the taxing statute limits revision but leaves review unrestricted.

A taxing statute that expressly prescribes a four-year limit for suo motu revision does not, by implication, impose the same limit on review when the review provision and rules contain no time bar. The Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 and Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1949 required reasons and, in specified cases, sanction, but did not fix any limitation period for review under section 24(5) and rule 39. The court held that the revisional limitation under section 24(4) could not be imported into the review power. The review order dated 5 December 1966 was therefore treated as within time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of review passed by the Deputy Commissioner under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 and the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1949 was barred by limitation, and whether the period of four years prescribed for suo motu revision could be imported into the power of review.

Analysis: Section 24(4) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 expressly fixes a four-year outer limit for initiation of suo motu revision. By contrast, section 24(5) of the Act, read with rule 39 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1949, confers review power but prescribes no period of limitation for its exercise. The rule only requires recording of reasons, previous sanction of the Commissioner in specified cases, and, for an officer below the rank of Commissioner, sanction before reviewing a predecessor's order. In the absence of any express restriction on time, and where the statute intentionally provides different limits for different jurisdictions, no limitation can be read into review by implication merely because revision is time-barred after four years.

Conclusion: The review order dated 5 December 1966 was not barred by time.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue, and the Tribunal's view on limitation was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute expressly prescribes a limitation for revision but not for review, the court will not import the revisional limitation into the review power by implication.

---