Suo motu revision time limit clarified: initiation begins with notice issuance, and the order was held within time.

Section 49(3) of the Chhattisgarh VAT Act was construed to require the Commissioner's suo motu revisional order to be passed within one calendar year from initiation of proceedings. Initiation occurs when the authority applies its mind, forms the requisite opinion, and issues notice under Rule 61, not when notice is served or when the assessee appears. "Calendar year" was given its ordinary meaning of 1 January to 31 December, making the one-year limit mandatory. On that construction, the proceeding initiated on 14 July 2015 and the order dated 28 November 2016 was held to be within time and within jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on a proper construction of Section 49(3) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, the revisional authority was required to pass the suo motu revision order within one calendar year from the date of initiation of proceedings, and whether initiation occurs when the authority applies its mind and issues notice under Rule 61 of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Rules, 2006.

Analysis: Section 49(3) empowers the Commissioner to exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction only after the record is examined, the authority forms the requisite opinion, and notice is issued. The word "initiation" was held to mean the point at which the revisional authority applies its mind and decides to commence the proceeding by issuing notice, not the date when the notice is merely served or when the assessee appears. The phrase "pass within one calendar year from the date of initiation of proceeding" was construed as a mandatory time limit governing exercise of the revisional power. The Court treated "calendar year" in its ordinary legal sense as running from 1 January to 31 December, and held that the order must be made within that period counted from the date of initiation. Applying that construction, the proceeding was initiated on 14 July 2015 and the impugned order dated 28 November 2016 fell within the permissible calendar-year period.

Conclusion: The revisional order was within time and within jurisdiction; the challenge failed.

---