Prospective amendment to revisional power bars assessee-initiated revision and defeats remand based on hearing defects.

After the amendment to section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, revisional power became exercisable by the Deputy Commissioner only suo motu when the assessment order was prejudicial to revenue, and the amendment was treated as prospective. An assessee could no longer move the Deputy Commissioner to invoke that jurisdiction at its instance, so the revision petitions were not maintainable and the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to entertain them. Because maintainability had fallen away, the Tribunal could not sustain a remand on the ground that no hearing was given under section 32(3); the remand order was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, after the amendment to section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the assessee could move the Deputy Commissioner to invoke revisional jurisdiction in respect of the assessment orders; (ii) whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and remanding the matter on the ground that the assessee was not given an opportunity of hearing under section 32(3).

Issue (i): whether, after the amendment to section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the assessee could move the Deputy Commissioner to invoke revisional jurisdiction in respect of the assessment orders.

Analysis: The amendment to section 32, which came into force on 1 November 1982, made the revisional power one exercisable by the Deputy Commissioner on his own motion only when the assessment order is found to be prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The petitions were filed after the amendment had taken effect, and the statutory scheme no longer permitted an assessee to compel the Deputy Commissioner to exercise revisional power at the assessee's instance. The amendment was treated as prospective and not retrospective.

Conclusion: The assessee had no to maintain the revision petitions before the Deputy Commissioner after the amendment; the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to entertain them at the assessee's instance.

Issue (ii): whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and remanding the matter on the ground that the assessee was not given an opportunity of hearing under section 32(3).

Analysis: Once the statutory amendment had withdrawn the assessee's right to invoke revisional jurisdiction, the foundation for remand on the alleged violation of section 32(3) did not survive. The Deputy Commissioner's refusal to entertain the petitions was in accordance with the amended provision, and the Tribunal's remand could not stand on the supposed want of hearing.

Conclusion: The remand ordered by the Tribunal was unjustified and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's revision petitions before the Deputy Commissioner were not maintainable after the statutory amendment, and the Tribunal's remand order was reversed, restoring the Deputy Commissioner's disposal.

Ratio Decidendi: After a prospective amendment restricts revisional power to suo motu action by the authority, an assessee cannot invoke that jurisdiction by filing a petition, and remand on the basis of hearing defects cannot survive once such maintainability is absent.

---