Suo motu revision refusal is not an appealable order when no substantive revisional order is made.

A refusal by the Deputy Commissioner or the Board of Revenue to invoke suo motu revisional power under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 is not itself an order under the relevant revision provision. A positive order made in suo motu revision under Section 32 can attract further revision where the statute permits, but a mere communication declining interference does not. The same distinction applies to the Board of Revenue under Section 34(1); where it only declined to interfere and granted incidental rate relief, the proceedings were not an appealable order under Section 34(1) and could not support an appeal under Section 37.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refusal by the Deputy Commissioner or the Board of Revenue to exercise suo motu revisional powers under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 constituted an order amenable to further revision or appeal.

Analysis: The Act drew a clear distinction between the Deputy Commissioner's suo motu revisional power and his power exercised at the instance of a party. A positive order made in exercise of suo motu revision under Section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 would be an order under that provision and could, where permissible, attract further revision. By contrast, a mere communication declining to interfere with a subordinate authority's order did not amount to an order under Section 32(1). The same principle applied to the Board of Revenue under Section 34(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Since the Board only declined to interfere and granted incidental relief on the rate of tax, its proceedings were not an order under Section 34(1) so as to support an appeal under Section 37.

Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable because the impugned proceedings were only a refusal to exercise suo motu revisional power and not an appealable order.

---