Revisional jurisdiction under sales tax law corrects record-based illegality, but cannot be used for fresh fact-finding inquiry.

Revisional power under section 10-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act extends to correcting an order passed under section 21 where the subordinate authority acted with illegality or impropriety on the existing record; the Deputy Commissioner therefore had jurisdiction to revise the discharge order. However, revision does not permit the revising authority to conduct a fresh fact-finding inquiry or collect new material, and disputed factual verification belongs to the assessing authority. The direction for further inquiry by the revising authority was accordingly unsustainable, and the matter was remitted to the assessing authority for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 10-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act to revise the order passed under section 21; (ii) whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the revising authority for further inquiry instead of to the assessing authority.

Issue (i): Whether the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 10-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act to revise the order passed under section 21.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 10-B extends to any order passed by a subordinate officer, subject to the statutory exceptions, and is confined to examining legality or propriety on the basis of material already on record. Where the assessing authority discharged a notice under section 21 without proper consideration of the existing assessment record and without recording adequate reasons, the resulting order could be treated as suffering from illegality or impropriety and was amenable to revision. The revisional authority was not invoking section 21 afresh but correcting an erroneous order already passed.

Conclusion: The Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise the order passed under section 21.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the revising authority for further inquiry instead of to the assessing authority.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction does not authorise the revising authority to undertake a fresh fact-finding exercise or collect additional material. Inquiry into disputed facts and verification of the explanation of the dealer fall within the province of the assessing authority or other fact-finding authority, not the revising authority. Since the Tribunal directed further inquiry by the revising authority, it exceeded the proper scope of revision, though the order required remand for fresh consideration on the existing directions.

Conclusion: The remand to the revising authority was unsustainable, and the matter had to be remanded to the assessing authority.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only in part: the revisional jurisdiction was upheld, but the direction requiring further inquiry by the revising authority was set aside and substituted with a remand to the assessing authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional power under section 10-B is confined to correcting illegality or impropriety apparent on the existing record and does not authorise the revising authority to conduct a fresh inquiry or act as a fact-finding body.

---