Reasonable time in revisional powers: prolonged delay after timely initiation made the order arbitrary and invalid.

A revisional power under section 34, even if initiated within limitation, must still be completed bona fide, reasonably and within a reasonable time. Prolonged delay after objections have been filed cannot be justified by the fact that the revision was started in time, because statutory power cannot be left undecided indefinitely. The Kerala HC treated such delay as rendering the eventual revisional order arbitrary, irrational and unfair, applying the Wednesbury principle, and rejected the distinction between timely initiation and delayed completion of revision. The revisional order was therefore held invalid, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner's suo motu revisional order under section 34, passed after an inordinate delay, was valid in law.

Analysis: The revisional power, though initiated within time, remained undecided for many years after objections were filed. The governing principle is that a statutory power must be exercised bona fide, reasonably, and within a reasonable time. The Court rejected any distinction between timely initiation of revision and indefinite delay in completing it. Such prolonged inaction rendered the eventual order arbitrary, irrational, and unfair, attracting the Wednesbury principle. The decisions taking a contrary view on a distinction between initiation and completion were not accepted.

Conclusion: The revisional order was held to be unreasonable and irrational and was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

---