Writ interference with suo motu revisional discretion and refund claims is limited where alternative remedies exist.

Extraordinary writ relief will not ordinarily compel a Commissioner to exercise suo motu revisional powers when the authority has already considered the request and declined to act for want of sufficient reason. The Court treated that refusal as a matter of discretionary satisfaction and declined interference under Article 226. Refund was also refused in writ jurisdiction because the assessee had an alternative civil remedy, the assessments had attained finality long earlier, and the circumstances did not justify directing repayment through writ proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the Commissioner's refusal to exercise suo motu revisional powers under Section 39(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act; (ii) whether a direction for refund of the tax paid and collected was warranted in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): whether the Court should interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the Commissioner's refusal to exercise suo motu revisional powers under Section 39(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The Commissioner did not decline jurisdiction on the footing that the assessee lacked standing to bring the matter to notice, but declined to act because no sufficient reason was shown for exercising suo motu revisional powers. The relief sought in writ jurisdiction depended on compelling the revisional authority to reopen the matter, although the authority had already considered whether the case was fit for such intervention. In these circumstances, the refusal to exercise revisional power was treated as a matter of discretionary satisfaction and not as a ground for extraordinary interference.

Conclusion: The writ court declined to interfere, and the relief was refused.

Issue (ii): whether a direction for refund of the tax paid and collected was warranted in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The refund claim was sought in a petition under Article 226 despite the availability of a civil suit. The assessments had been completed long earlier on the basis of returns voluntarily filed, and the Court considered that the circumstances did not justify ordering refund in writ proceedings. The existence of an alternative remedy and the long finality of the assessments weighed against grant of the discretionary relief.

Conclusion: The refund prayer was rejected in writ jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on both the challenge to the Commissioner's refusal to invoke revisional power and the request for refund, and was summarily dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Extraordinary writ relief will not ordinarily be granted to compel a revisional authority to exercise suo motu powers or to order refund where the authority has already declined to act on merits and an adequate alternative remedy exists.

---