Revisional jurisdiction cannot reopen final appellate relief outside the scope of a dealer's own revision.

In revision under section 20 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the revisional authority could not enlarge a dealer's limited revision to reopen turnover already accepted by the appellate authority and not put in issue by the dealer. The power was wide, but it had to be exercised within the scope of the revision, with recorded reasons and a proper hearing before any adverse action. A notice calling upon the dealer to show cause why the entire claim should be disallowed was therefore beyond jurisdiction and invalid, because it sought to unsettle the portion of the appellate order that had already gone in the dealer's favour.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in revision under section 20 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the Commissioner could reopen and disallow turnover which had already been accepted by the appellate authority and which was not the subject of the dealer's revision, and whether the notice issued to the dealer to show cause against disallowance of the entire claim was within jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 20 distinguishes between revision on the Commissioner's own motion and revision on the application of an aggrieved party, and requires reasons to be recorded and opportunity of hearing when adverse action is proposed. The revisional power, though wide, was held not to permit the Commissioner, on a dealer's revision confined to a specific disallowance, to enlarge the controversy and unsettle the portion of the appellate order which had gone in favour of the dealer and had not been brought up for revision. The impugned notice was read as seeking to reopen the entire claim merely on the strength of a later Supreme Court decision, although the revisional order had dealt only with the remaining disputed sum.

Conclusion: The Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to reconsider the claim already allowed by the appellate authority, and the notice calling upon the dealer to show cause why the entire claim should not be disallowed was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the impugned notice was quashed, leaving the respondent free, if so advised and in accordance with law, to proceed by a fresh and proper revisional order.

Ratio Decidendi: In a revision initiated by an aggrieved dealer, the revisional authority cannot, without proper notice and jurisdictional basis, reopen and prejudice portions of the appellate order that were not the subject of revision and had attained finality.

---