Revisional power limited to orders prejudicial to Revenue, while statutory appeal may validly be conditioned by pre-deposit.

The amended revisional power under section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act is confined to orders that are erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue; that requirement is mandatory and cannot be diluted by interpretation. The commentary also notes that a statutory appeal may validly be regulated by pre-deposit conditions, and the separate limitation on suo motu revision does not amount to hostile discrimination or violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 300A.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner could exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 only where the impugned order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. (ii) Whether limiting revisional interference in that manner, while appeal was subject to deposit conditions, was discriminatory or violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner could exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 only where the impugned order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.

Analysis: The amended text of section 46(4) conferred suo motu revisional power on the Commissioner only when an order was found to be erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The words used in the provision were clear and had to be given their natural meaning. Reading the provision otherwise would make the expression "prejudicial to the interest of Revenue" redundant, which was impermissible. The earlier interpretation of the unamended provision could not control the amended language.

Conclusion: The condition that the order must be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue was mandatory, and the Commissioner was justified in refusing revision where that condition was not satisfied.

Issue (ii): Whether limiting revisional interference in that manner, while appeal was subject to deposit conditions, was discriminatory or violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The right of appeal is a statutory right and may validly be regulated by conditions imposed by the Legislature, including pre-deposit requirements. The statute also rationally distinguished between the dealer's appellate remedy and the Revenue's suo motu revisional power, which was confined to cases prejudicial to the Revenue. That arrangement neither created hostile discrimination nor curtailed the constitutional protections invoked by the petitioner.

Conclusion: The challenge based on discrimination and constitutional infringement failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ application failed on merits, and the impugned order dismissing the revision was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a revisional statute expressly conditions jurisdiction on prejudice to the Revenue, that condition is mandatory and cannot be diluted by construction; a statutory appeal may also be subjected to valid pre-deposit requirements without offending constitutional guarantees.

---