TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the assessee could invite the Deputy Commissioner to exercise suo motu revisional power under section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. (ii) Whether the Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction under section 32 was barred because appeals had been filed and dismissed as time-barred, or because the assessee had been dilatory in pursuing appellate remedies.
Issue (i): Whether the assessee could invite the Deputy Commissioner to exercise suo motu revisional power under section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Analysis: The revisional power under section 32 was held to be conferred to prevent injustice and to ensure correction of illegality or irregularity. A party aggrieved by an order may bring the error to the notice of the revisional authority and request exercise of that power. The distinction sought to be drawn between the Board's revisional power and the Deputy Commissioner's power was rejected because the language of the relevant provisions was treated as in pari materia.
Conclusion: The assessee could validly invoke the Deputy Commissioner's suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 32.
Issue (ii): Whether the Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction under section 32 was barred because appeals had been filed and dismissed as time-barred, or because the assessee had been dilatory in pursuing appellate remedies.
Analysis: Only an effective appeal bars revision under section 32(2)(b). Appeals dismissed at the threshold as time-barred do not amount to effective appeals and therefore do not attract the statutory bar. The refusal to exercise revision merely because the assessee had not been diligent in filing appeals was held to be based on an irrelevant consideration and could not defeat revisional jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The earlier time-barred appeals did not oust the Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction, and refusal to entertain revision on the ground of lack of diligence was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The revisional orders were set aside and the matters were sent back for fresh disposal in accordance with law, leaving the revisional authority to decide the merits.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory suo motu revisional power intended to prevent injustice may be set in motion at the instance of an aggrieved assessee, and the bar against revision applies only when there has been an effective appeal on merits, not when the appellate proceeding was dismissed as time-barred.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
