Jurisdictional challenge and revisional power: writ remedy can lie, and suo motu revision needs independent justification.

Writ jurisdiction may be invoked despite an alternative appellate remedy where the challenge goes to the revisional authority's jurisdiction itself, because the alternative-remedy rule is discretionary rather than absolute. Suo motu revision can be exercised only when the reassessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue; it cannot be based mechanically on the same audit objections after those objections have already been examined and rejected on merits. Where the reassessment authority has applied its mind, accepted the dealer's explanation, and given reasons, a revisional order founded on borrowed or dictated reasoning without independent enquiry is impermissible. The reassessment orders were therefore protected from revisional interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy when the revisional authority was alleged to have acted without jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the revisional authority could invoke suo motu revision on the same audit objections after the reassessment authority had rejected them on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy when the revisional authority was alleged to have acted without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction. Where the challenge is to assumption of jurisdiction itself, the High Court may interfere in writ jurisdiction. A jurisdictional fact must exist before authority can act, and an order passed on a wrongly assumed jurisdictional fact can be corrected by certiorari. The petitioner challenged the very competence of the revisional authority, bringing the case within the recognised exceptions to the alternative-remedy rule.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional authority could invoke suo motu revision on the same audit objections after the reassessment authority had rejected them on merits.

Analysis: Suo motu revision required the existence of twin conditions: the order sought to be revised must be erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. An authority cannot revise an order merely because it takes a different view where the assessment view is a permissible and sustainable view in law. The reassessment authority had examined the documents, accepted the dealer's explanation, and rejected the audit objections with reasons. The revisional authority, however, mechanically relied on the same audit objections, did not independently demonstrate any error in the reassessment order, and did not undertake the enquiry contemplated by the revisional rule. Such exercise of power without application of mind and on dictated or borrowed reasoning was impermissible.

Conclusion: The revisional authority had no jurisdiction to revise the reassessment orders on the same rejected audit objections.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment orders were protected from interference, and the revisional notices and orders founded on the audit objections could not stand. The petitioner succeeded in challenging the revisionary action.

Ratio Decidendi: Suo motu revisional power can be exercised only when the order under challenge is both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and it cannot be invoked mechanically or merely because the revisional authority prefers a different sustainable view.

---