Suo motu revision limitation turns on when records are called for, not the final revisional order, under sales tax law.

A Karnataka High Court note on section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 states that delay of 1,633 days in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellant, an erstwhile partner, had not been shown to have earlier notice of the Commissioner's order and the Revenue produced no contrary material. It further states that suo motu revision is within limitation if the Commissioner calls for the records within the prescribed period; the decisive date is the initiation of revision, not the date of the final revisional order. Applying that construction, the revisional action was treated as timely and valid, and the Revenue's order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 1,633 days in filing the appeal deserved condonation on the ground of want of notice to the appellant. (ii) Whether the Commissioner's action under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 was barred by limitation because the revisional order was made after more than four years from the appellate order.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 1,633 days in filing the appeal deserved condonation on the ground of want of notice to the appellant.

Analysis: The record showed that the assessment and revisional proceedings relating to the dissolved firm had been dealt with by notice to the managing partner, and the appellant was an erstwhile partner. The material placed before the Court did not show that the appellant had notice of the Commissioner's order at an earlier point of time. In the absence of contra material from the Revenue, the explanation for delay was accepted as sufficient.

Conclusion: The delay was rightly condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner's action under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 was barred by limitation because the revisional order was made after more than four years from the appellate order.

Analysis: The Court applied the settled construction of the revisional provision that the power of suo motu revision commences when the Commissioner calls for the records, not when the final revisional order is passed. On the facts, the records were called for within four years from the date of the appellate order, and therefore the initiation of revision was within the statutory period. The earlier Division Bench view on section 21, treated as analogous to section 22-A, was reaffirmed.

Conclusion: The revisional action was within limitation and was not without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both delay and merits, and the Revenue's revisional order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For a suo motu revisional power conditioned by a time limit, the material date is the date on which the authority calls for the records and thereby commences revision proceedings, not the date of the eventual revisional order.

---