Suo motu revision and scope of "record" under sales tax law were construed broadly, with revision and reassessment kept distinct.
The Bombay High Court held that the suo motu revision power under section 57(1)(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 is expressed in wide terms and is not subject to any specific condition precedent, though its exercise may still be challenged if arbitrary, mala fide, or based on extraneous considerations. It further held that "record of any order" includes all material that was before the assessing authority when the order was made, including books of account, bills, invoices and supporting documents. Material discovered only after assessment cannot be used in revision and instead falls within reassessment, as the two remedies operate in distinct fields.
Issues: (i) Whether the power of suo motu revision under section 57(1)(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 is subject to any condition precedent; (ii) Whether the expression "record of any order" in section 57(1)(a) includes the books of account and supporting documents produced before the assessing authority.
Issue (i): Whether the power of suo motu revision under section 57(1)(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 is subject to any condition precedent.
Analysis: The revisional provision was couched in wide terms and was not hedged by any qualifying expression limiting its exercise. Unlike some other statutes, the section did not require the Commissioner to satisfy any specific jurisdictional precondition before initiating revision. The initiation could be questioned only if it was arbitrary, mala fide, based on extraneous considerations, or amounted to a fishing enquiry without basis in the record.
Conclusion: The power of suo motu revision under section 57(1)(a) is not dependent on any condition precedent, and its exercise was valid.
Issue (ii): Whether the expression "record of any order" in section 57(1)(a) includes the books of account and supporting documents produced before the assessing authority.
Analysis: The expression "record" was held to be of wide import. It includes not merely the assessment order or papers retained by the assessing officer, but the entire material that was before the assessing authority when the order was made, including books of account, bills, invoices and other documents. Material that came into existence only after the assessment and was never before the assessing authority could not be used for revision under section 57(1)(a); such cases would fall within reassessment under section 35. The revisional and reassessment powers operate in different fields and do not overlap.
Conclusion: The expression "record of any order" includes the assessee's books of account and documents that were before the assessing authority, and the revisional authority could validly rely on them.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by upholding the revisional jurisdiction and the wider meaning of "record", with the result that the questions were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of suo motu revision, "record" includes all material that was before the assessing authority when the impugned order was passed, but not evidence discovered for the first time after assessment; revision and reassessment are distinct remedies operating in different spheres.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
