Revisional jurisdiction allows challenge to threshold rejection orders and permits remand for fresh consideration.

An order passed by the Commissioner under section 31(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, including a threshold rejection of a dealer's application, remained revisable under section 31(2) because it was made in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and was not outside the statutory scheme merely because no merits were examined. The Commercial Taxes Tribunal therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the revisions and could also set aside the Commissioner's orders and remit the matters for fresh consideration where fuller examination was required. The reference was answered in favour of the assessees, and the Tribunal's revisional power and power of remand were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commercial Taxes Tribunal had jurisdiction under section 31(2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 to entertain revisions against orders by which the Commissioner rejected applications under section 31(5) in limine. (ii) Whether the Tribunal could set aside such orders and remand the matter to the Commissioner for reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether the Commercial Taxes Tribunal had jurisdiction under section 31(2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 to entertain revisions against orders by which the Commissioner rejected applications under section 31(5) in limine.

Analysis: Section 31(5) conferred a wide revisional power on the Commissioner to examine the legality or propriety of orders passed by subordinate authorities, subject only to the outer limit of four years. The rejection of a dealer's application at the threshold was not merely a refusal to initiate action outside the section but an order passed in the exercise of the section 31(5) jurisdiction itself. The revisional power under section 31(2) was available against orders of the Commissioner under section 31(5), and the fact that the Commissioner declined relief without entering into the merits did not take the order outside the scope of revision.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the revisions under section 31(2) against the Commissioner's orders under section 31(5), even though those applications had been rejected in limine.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal could set aside such orders and remand the matter to the Commissioner for reconsideration.

Analysis: Revisional power is not confined to affirming or reversing on merits alone. An order disposing of a revisional or analogous application on a preliminary ground may still be revisable, and the revisional authority may issue directions that the competent authority reconsider the matter according to law. Where the Tribunal found that the Commissioner ought to have examined the applications more fully, it was competent to remit the cases for fresh consideration.

Conclusion: The Tribunal could validly set aside the Commissioner's orders and remand the cases for re-examination.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the assessees, and the Tribunal's exercise of revisional jurisdiction and power of remand was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An order of the Commissioner under section 31(5), including one rejecting a dealer's application at the threshold, is revisable under section 31(2), and the revisional authority may remand the matter for fresh consideration.

---