Revisional jurisdiction and show-cause notice challenge: designated authority may act on material from any source, and threshold quashing was refused.

An officer validly designated under the Act could exercise revisional jurisdiction as the statutory definition of Commissioner covered the appointed authority and the notification extended that power to the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The phrase "at his own motion" was construed to mean the authority's own decision to initiate revision, not a requirement that the information must originate from the authority alone, so material received from subordinate sources was sufficient if independent prima facie satisfaction was formed. A challenge to the show-cause notice for non-disclosure of the basis was premature, and the writ court declined to quash it at the threshold because the merits of the alleged illegality had to be examined in the revision proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner was competent to invoke revisional jurisdiction under the Act; (ii) Whether revisional power could be exercised only on the authority's own information and not on material received from subordinate authorities; (iii) Whether the show-cause notice could be quashed at the threshold for alleged non-disclosure of the basis of revisional action.

Issue (i): Whether the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner was competent to invoke revisional jurisdiction under the Act.

Analysis: The definition of "Commissioner" under the Act included the Excise and Taxation Commissioner appointed by the State Government, and the statutory scheme empowered the State Government to appoint officers to act as Commissioner and to assist him. A notification had designated the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner to exercise powers under the revisional provision throughout the State. On that basis, the officer issuing the notice fell within the statutory description of the Commissioner or designated officer for the purpose of revision.

Conclusion: The Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner was competent to exercise revisional jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether revisional power could be exercised only on the authority's own information and not on material received from subordinate authorities.

Analysis: The expression "at his own motion" was read as referring to the authority's own decision to initiate revision, not to the exclusive source of information. The source of information was held to be immaterial so long as the authority independently formed a prima facie satisfaction that the assessment order appeared illegal or improper. The jurisdiction to interfere would arise only after consideration of the reply and a concluded satisfaction on legality or propriety.

Conclusion: Revisional action could be initiated on information from any source, provided the authority independently applied its mind and formed the requisite satisfaction.

Issue (iii): Whether the show-cause notice could be quashed at the threshold for alleged non-disclosure of the basis of revisional action.

Analysis: A challenge to the notice on the ground that the revisional authority had not disclosed sufficient reasons was held premature. At the stage of notice, the correctness of the grounds and the merits of alleged illegality or impropriety were matters for the revisional authority to examine after considering the petitioner's reply. The writ court declined to interfere at the threshold.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice was not liable to be quashed at the threshold.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the initiation of revisional proceedings and declined to interfere with the impugned notice.

Ratio Decidendi: An officer validly designated under the Act may initiate revisional proceedings on material received from any source, and a writ court will not quash a show-cause notice at the threshold unless jurisdictional illegality is shown on the face of the record.

---