Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the suo motu revisional power under section 21(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 could be exercised after more than six years from the original assessment, and whether such exercise was within a reasonable period.
Analysis: Section 21(1) confers revisional power without prescribing any express limitation, but such power must still be exercised within a reasonable period. The Court applied the settled principle that reasonableness depends on the statutory scheme and relevant circumstances, and relied on the controlling view that revisional jurisdiction under the Act should ordinarily be exercised within three years and in any event should not exceed five years. In the present case, the reassessment was sought after more than six years on a ground already known to the department when the relevant legal position emerged, and no justification was shown for the delay.
Conclusion: The revisional authority was not justified in invoking section 21(1) after more than six years, and the revisional action was beyond a reasonable period.
Final Conclusion: The reassessment was restored and the revisional orders were set aside because the exercise of suo motu revision was time-barred in substance for want of action within a reasonable period.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a revisional power is conferred without an express limitation period, it must nevertheless be exercised within a reasonable time, and unexplained delay beyond the ordinarily acceptable period renders the revision unsustainable.