Broad suo motu revision power covers appellate orders, but must still be exercised within a reasonable time.

Section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 was construed as conferring a broad suo motu revisional power on the Commissioner to examine the legality or propriety of "any order" passed in a proceeding under the Act, including appellate orders, unless expressly excluded. The wider supervisory power was distinguished from revision on application under the other sub-sections, and the legislative history supported this interpretation. The Court also held that, even without an express limitation period, suo motu revision must be initiated within a reasonable time; initiation about two years after communication of the appellate order was not unreasonable on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had power under section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 to initiate suo motu revision against an appellate order passed under the Act. (ii) Whether the suo motu revisional proceeding was vitiated for having been initiated beyond a reasonable time.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had power under section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 to initiate suo motu revision against an appellate order passed under the Act.

Analysis: The revisional scheme under section 46 distinguished between revision on application under sub-sections (1) and (2) and the special power conferred on the Commissioner under sub-section (4). The Court held that the expression "any proceeding" and the words "any order" were of wide amplitude and were not confined to assessment orders alone. The legislative history of the provision, including earlier enactments and amendments, showed that the Commissioner's special power was intended as a supervisory power to correct legality or propriety of orders passed by subordinate authorities, including appellate authorities. The rule relied upon by the petitioner was held not to curtail the suo motu power under section 46(4).

Conclusion: The Commissioner had jurisdiction to initiate suo motu revision against the appellate order, and the challenge on lack of power failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the suo motu revisional proceeding was vitiated for having been initiated beyond a reasonable time.

Analysis: Although section 46(4) did not prescribe an express limitation period for suo motu action, the Court held that the power must still be exercised within a reasonable time. On the facts, the revisional step was taken within about two years from communication of the appellate order. That period was held not to be unreasonable in the circumstances, and the proceeding was not invalid on the ground of delay.

Conclusion: The initiation of suo motu revision was within reasonable time and was not illegal on limitation grounds.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on either of the substantive grounds urged, and the Commissioner's revisional action was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute confers a broad suo motu revisional power on the Commissioner to examine the legality or propriety of any order passed in a proceeding under the Act, that power extends to appellate orders unless expressly excluded, but it must be exercised within a reasonable time even if no express limitation is prescribed.

---