Revisional jurisdiction requires proof of illegality or impropriety; Tribunal order set aside for failing to examine merits.

The Tribunal's order upholding revision under Section 10-B was found unsustainable because it addressed only jurisdiction and did not examine whether the statutory precondition of illegality or impropriety in the assessment order was actually shown. The Deputy Commissioner had set aside the assessments and remanded the matter on the basis that excise duty on petroleum products was not included in turnover, but the Tribunal failed to adjudicate the dealer's substantive objection on merits. The High Court held that this omission deprived the order of proper legal basis, set it aside, and required the appeals to be heard afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order upholding the Deputy Commissioner's exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 10-B was sustainable when the merits of the alleged illegality or impropriety in the assessment order were not examined.

Analysis: The order under challenge showed that the Deputy Commissioner had set aside the assessments and remanded the matter on the footing that excise duty on petroleum products had not been included in turnover. The Tribunal, however, confined itself to reproducing Section 10-B and to the question of jurisdiction, without examining whether the precondition for revision, namely the existence of illegality or impropriety in the assessment order, was established on the record. Since the Tribunal did not deal with the dealer's substantive contention that no such illegality or impropriety was shown, the appellate order lacked proper adjudication on merits.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was not legally sustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions succeeded, and the appeals were directed to be heard and decided afresh in accordance with law.

---