Revisional jurisdiction under sales tax law extends to appellate orders of the Deputy Commissioner, with limitation running from notice issue.

Under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, the Commissioner's revisional power extended to a first appellate order passed by the Deputy Commissioner because the statute treated that officer as one appointed to assist the Commissioner and expressly allowed revision of such orders if erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The earlier precedent under a different statutory scheme was distinguishable. For limitation under section 39(2), the three-year period was computed from the date of issue of the revisional notice, not the date of service. On that basis, the notice was within time and the revisional action was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 39(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 to revise a first appellate order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax; (ii) Whether the three-year period for initiating revision under section 39(2) was to be computed from the date of issue of the notice or the date of service of the notice.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 39(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 to revise a first appellate order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 differed materially from the repealed enactment considered in the earlier precedent. Under section 3 of the 1958 Act, the Deputy Commissioner was one of the designated officers appointed to assist the Commissioner, while section 39(2) empowered the Commissioner to revise any order passed by such an authority if it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The earlier decision was therefore treated as distinguishable on the basis of the altered legislative structure.

Conclusion: The Commissioner did have power to revise the first appellate order of the Deputy Commissioner under section 39(2), and this contention failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the three-year period for initiating revision under section 39(2) was to be computed from the date of issue of the notice or the date of service of the notice.

Analysis: The limitation proviso was applied by reference to the date on which the revisional notice was issued. On that footing, the notice issued within three years of the appellate order was within time, and service on a later date did not control the computation.

Conclusion: Limitation was to be computed from the date of issue of the notice, so the revision was within time.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the revisional notice and the revisional order were legally sustainable, and no interference was called for.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing statute expressly includes appellate authorities among the officers appointed to assist the Commissioner, the Commissioner may revise their orders under the statutory revisional power; limitation for such revision is computed from the date of issue of the notice, not its service.

---