Revisional power under sales tax law cannot be denied for no prior appeal, and limitation cannot defeat timely invocation.

Section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was treated as a broad revisional power that an assessee could invoke within the statutory framework, and the absence of a prior appeal was not a valid reason to refuse consideration. The article also states that limitation did not defeat the revision where the application had been filed within time and the authority later dealt with it pursuant to a writ direction. The authority could not rely on its own inaction to deny merits-based consideration, and the revisional jurisdiction remained available in those circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Deputy Commissioner could refuse to exercise revisional power under section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act on the grounds that no appeal had been filed and the assessment had become final; and (ii) whether the expiry of the statutory period barred action under section 32 when the matter had been brought before the authority within time and was later considered pursuant to a writ direction.

Issue (i): whether the Deputy Commissioner could refuse to exercise revisional power under section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act on the grounds that no appeal had been filed and the assessment had become final.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 32 was held to be wide enough to be invoked at the instance of an assessee, subject to the statutory conditions. A refusal solely because the assessee had not filed an appeal would make the provision largely ineffective, since the power would be unavailable both where an appeal had been filed and where it had not. The absence of an earlier appeal was therefore not a valid ground to decline consideration of the revision petition.

Conclusion: The objection based on non-filing of an appeal was rejected and the assessee was entitled to seek consideration under section 32.

Issue (ii): whether the expiry of the statutory period barred action under section 32 when the matter had been brought before the authority within time and was later considered pursuant to a writ direction.

Analysis: The application invoking section 32 was filed within the original four-year period. The authority had sufficient time to act but failed to do so before the period elapsed. It was further held that limitation attached to the ordinary exercise of the power could not defeat compliance with a direction issued in writ proceedings. The subsequent statutory enlargement of time did not alter the conclusion on the facts, and the authority could not rely on its own inaction to defeat the assessee's claim.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation was rejected and the revisional jurisdiction was held to remain available in the circumstances.

Final Conclusion: The revision lacked merit because section 32 could be invoked by the assessee and neither the absence of an appeal nor the expiry of time defeated the authority's duty to consider the matter on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory revisional power intended to correct illegality or impropriety may be invoked by an assessee within the statutory framework, and limitation cannot be used to defeat consideration where the matter was initiated in time or is being dealt with pursuant to a writ direction.

---