Suo motu revisional power must be used sparingly; the Board could not disturb a remand order without statutory justification.

Rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 required a producer or manufacturer to maintain proper accounts, including a production-cum-stock account, but did not require a separate manufacturing account or a separate account of inter-State purchases, provided the prescribed information was substantially maintained. Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 conferred suo motu revisional power on the Board of Revenue, but that power was exceptional and had to be exercised sparingly and only where necessary to protect revenue within statutory limits. The Board was therefore not justified in interfering with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's remand order and wrongly exercised revisional jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Board of Revenue was justified in exercising suo motu revisional power to set aside the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's remand order and restore the assessment.

Analysis: Rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 required a producer or manufacturer to maintain proper accounts, including a production-cum-stock account, but it did not mandate a separate manufacturing account or a separate account showing purchases from outside the State. The rule also permitted maintenance of the prescribed account in any form so long as the substantial information required by the form was contained in it. On the revisional side, section 34 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 conferred special suo motu power on the Board, but the power was not meant for routine exercise and had to be used sparingly, only where interference was necessary to protect revenue and within the limits indicated by the statute.

Conclusion: The Board acted without justification in interfering with the remand order and wrongly exercised its revisional jurisdiction.

---