Suo motu revision requires both error and revenue prejudice; mere disagreement with the appellate view is not enough.

Suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 36(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, read with section 74, can be invoked only if the order sought to be revised is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, and the defect must be jurisdictional in nature. Mere disagreement with the appellate authority or a view that higher tax should have been levied is insufficient. On the facts, no jurisdictional error or statutory precondition for revision was shown, so the notice was held unsustainable and quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner could invoke suo motu revisional power under section 36(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, read with section 74, against the appellate order without showing that the order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

Analysis: The revisional power is conditional and can be exercised only when the impugned order satisfies both requirements together. The expressions "erroneous" and "prejudicial to the interest of revenue" denote a jurisdictional defect in the order sought to be revised. Mere disagreement with the appellate authority's view, or the belief that a higher tax ought to have been levied, is insufficient. On the facts, the material placed before the Court did not disclose any jurisdictional error in the appellate order, nor did it establish the Commissioner's satisfaction on the statutory preconditions.

Conclusion: The conditions for exercising suo motu revisional power were not met, and the impugned notice was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the revision notice was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Suo motu revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only when the order sought to be revised is shown to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, and such error must be jurisdictional in nature.

---