Board exceeded jurisdiction by revising order without cause. Suo motu power must be used sparingly.

The Court held that the Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by impugning the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order through a suo motu revision. The Board's reasons for interference were deemed unjustifiable as the failure to maintain a separate account did not warrant overturning the appellate order. The judgment emphasized that the Board's suo motu power should be used sparingly and only in special circumstances to safeguard revenue interests. Consequently, the Board's order was set aside, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision was reinstated, remitting the case to the assessing authority.

---

---

Issues:
1. Impugning a suo motu revision order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by the Board of Revenue.
2. Justifiability of the reasons assigned by the Board to interfere with the appellate order.
3. Examination of the power of the Board of Revenue to exercise suo motu revision power.
4. Proper exercise of the suo motu revisional power by the Board of Revenue.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal involved challenging a suo motu revision order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by the Board of Revenue. The appellant reported a total turnover under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, which was later adjusted by the assessing officer. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner canceled the assessment in part and remanded the matter. However, the Board decided to issue a notice and subsequently canceled the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order, leading to the impugned order. The key issue was whether the Board could interfere with the order of remand by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

2. The justifiability of the reasons assigned by the Board to interfere with the appellate order was examined. The Board contended that the assessee failed to maintain a separate account to prove certain purchases. However, it was highlighted that the relevant rule did not mandate a separate manufacturing account or a separate account for purchases from outside the State. The rule required maintaining an up-to-date account showing goods dealt with, which could be in any form containing essential information. The failure to maintain a separate account was not considered a sufficient reason to undo the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order.

3. The judgment delved into the power of the Board of Revenue to exercise suo motu revision power. The statutory framework under the Act allowed for appeals and revisions at different levels. The power of revision by the Board was scrutinized, emphasizing that it should be used sparingly and not to undermine the appeal process. The conditions for exercising suo motu revision were outlined, emphasizing the need for special circumstances and ensuring no pending appeals or issues at higher levels.

4. The proper exercise of the suo motu revisional power by the Board of Revenue was a crucial aspect of the judgment. It was underscored that the suo motu power should only be invoked when the interest of revenue was at stake and not as a routine measure. The judgment cited a precedent emphasizing the need for judicious use of revisional power. Ultimately, the Court found that the Board had acted illegally and exceeded its jurisdiction in this case. Consequently, the Board's order was set aside, and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision was restored, effectively remitting the case to the assessing authority.

---