Limited revisional jurisdiction under way-bill notice must stay confined to defect scrutiny and demand validity, not assessment review.

A revisional authority dealing with a notice in form VIB under Rule 94 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules had to confine itself to defects in the way bill and to whether the demand was excessive, arbitrary, or otherwise unjustified. It could not proceed as if a full assessment order was under revision. Treating the matter beyond that limited scope was an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The revisional order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh disposal within the confines of the notice.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a revision arising out of a notice in form VIB issued under Rule 94 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947, the Commissioner was required to confine himself to the question of defect in the way bill and the propriety of the amount demanded, and whether the revisional order was liable to be quashed for treating the matter as if an assessment was under revision.

Analysis: Rule 94 authorises issuance of notice in form VIB for removal of defects in the way bill. The revisional authority was, therefore, required to examine only whether the way bills suffered from any defect requiring rectification and, if so, whether the amount demanded was excessive, arbitrary, or otherwise unjustified. Instead, the Commissioner proceeded as though an assessment order was under challenge. That approach exceeded the limited scope of the revision and constituted an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The order was consequently quashed and the matter was sent back for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The revisional order could not stand and the assessee was entitled to a fresh hearing on the limited issue arising under the notice in form VIB.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute or rule confers a limited revisional jurisdiction to examine defects in a way bill and the legality of a demand made on that basis, the authority must confine itself to that limited enquiry and cannot treat the proceeding as a full assessment revision.

---