Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Board of Revenue could, in purported rectification proceedings, revive and enhance a penalty order when no appeal had been preferred against that part of the original order and no review power existed.
Analysis: The controversy concerned only the legality of the Board's later order, by which it treated rectification as a means to reopen an earlier appellate order and restore the enhanced penalty. The governing principle applied was that a tribunal cannot exercise a power of review or enhancement unless such power is expressly conferred by the statute. Since the original appeal did not cover the penalty under the relevant provision, and since no lawful review application had been made, the subsequent interference amounted to an impermissible reopening of a concluded matter.
Conclusion: The Board had no jurisdiction to enhance the penalty in rectification proceedings, and the impugned order was illegal and unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the challenged order was set aside, with consequential relief in favour of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory authority cannot, under the guise of rectification, exercise an unferred power of review or enhance a penalty beyond the scope of the appeal or proceeding before it.