Reasonable-time control on suo motu revision bars belated reopening of settled tax matters, but not per se trenching on other powers.

Suo motu revisional power under the Bombay Sales Tax Act must be exercised within a reasonable time even if no express limitation is prescribed, because finalised tax assessments should not be reopened arbitrarily after long delay. On the facts, a notice issued more than eight years after the appellate order was held invalid, absent fraud or systematic evasion. However, revision does not by itself amount to rectification or reassessment, and it is not invalid merely because it overlaps with those powers unless parallel proceedings are actually pending. The reasonable-time principle was upheld, while the trenching objection was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suo motu revisional power under section 31 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 could be exercised after an inordinate delay of more than eight years. (ii) Whether the exercise of revisional power trenching upon the powers of rectification or reassessment was valid in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the suo motu revisional power under section 31 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 could be exercised after an inordinate delay of more than eight years.

Analysis: The statutory power of revision, though not expressly time-barred, is subject to an inherent requirement that it must be exercised reasonably and within a reasonable time. The principle declared by the Supreme Court on reasonable exercise of statutory power is not confined to the statute in which it was stated, but applies generally to similar revisional powers. In tax matters, the yearly assessment structure, the finality of completed assessments, and the hardship caused by reopening settled matters after a long lapse of time are relevant considerations. No case of fraud or systematic evasion was shown, and the revisional notice was issued after more than eight years from the relevant appellate order.

Conclusion: The revisional power was not validly exercised after such delay and the answer on this issue was against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the exercise of revisional power trenching upon the powers of rectification or reassessment was valid in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction does not itself amount to rectification or reassessment and does not inherently invade those powers. Trenching upon another authority's power arises only when proceedings for appeal or rectification are actually pending in the same matter. In the absence of such pending proceedings, the revisional authority does not encroach upon the reserved powers of other authorities under the Act.

Conclusion: The revisional power was not invalid merely on the ground of trenching upon rectification or reassessment powers, and the answer on this issue was in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was disposed of by upholding the principle of reasonable-time control on suo motu revision while rejecting the broader objection based on alleged trenching upon rectification powers.

Ratio Decidendi: Even where no express period of limitation is prescribed, a statutory revisional power must be exercised within a reasonable time and in a bona fide, non-arbitrary manner, having regard to the nature of the order and the consequences of reopening settled proceedings.

---