Reasoned revisional orders and saving of pending tax revisions under a repealed sales tax law were both affirmed.

The Commissioner retained jurisdiction to exercise suo motu revision over an appellate order passed under the repealed Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 because the revisional proceeding had been initiated under that Act and was preserved by the statutory saving framework. However, the revisional order could not stand because it was a quasi-judicial decision affecting a valuable right and gave no reasons. A cryptic order without supporting reasoning was held unsustainable in judicial review, so the writ petition succeeded to the extent that the revisional order was quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh reasoned decision after hearing the parties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to exercise suo motu revisional power in respect of an appellate order passed under the repealed Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 after the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 came into force. (ii) Whether the revisional order restoring the original assessment could be sustained when it was passed without reasons.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction to exercise suo motu revisional power in respect of an appellate order passed under the repealed Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 after the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 came into force.

Analysis: The revisional proceeding had been initiated under section 20 of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956, and the old Act permitted revision even after an appellate order, subject to the express statutory limitations. The later enactment did not destroy the pending revisional proceeding, and the matter was saved under the new regime. The appellate authority under the earlier Act was also within the class of authorities contemplated by the revisional provision.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had jurisdiction to pass the revisional order.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional order restoring the original assessment could be sustained when it was passed without reasons.

Analysis: The order took away a valuable right and was passed in exercise of quasi-judicial power. Such an order must disclose reasons, and a cryptic order without any supporting reasoning cannot survive judicial review.

Conclusion: The revisional order was unsustainable and liable to be quashed for want of reasons.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the revisional order was quashed and the matter was remitted for a fresh reasoned decision after hearing the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority exercising quasi-judicial power must pass a reasoned order, and proceedings initiated under the repealed sales tax law may continue if preserved by the statutory saving framework.

---