Revisional limitation under sales tax law must be read purposively; notice and final order must fit within the statutory time framework.

Amended revisional limitation under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act was construed purposively to require the authority to act within the statutory time framework, including both initiation of suo motu revision and passing of the final order after notice. The court held that an interpretation leaving issuance of notice without an effective limitation would defeat the 1992 amendment's object of preventing open-ended revisional proceedings and securing finality. The earlier view under the unamended provision and a different statutory scheme was held inapplicable, while the binding approach in Om Metals & Minerals Ltd. was followed. The revisional proceedings were therefore time-barred and the impugned revision could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assistant Commissioner's revisional action under section 67 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act was barred by limitation, and whether the notice and consequent revisional order could be sustained.

Analysis: The amended form of section 67 required the revisional authority, acting suo motu, to call for and examine the record within the prescribed period and to pass the final revisional order within 12 months from the date of service of notice for revision. The earlier interpretation placed on the unamended provision, and on the corresponding provision in the Bombay Sales Tax Act, was held inapplicable because the 1992 amendment introduced a material change intended to avoid open-ended revisional proceedings and to secure finality. Reading the amended provision purposively, the limitation could not be confined only to issuance of notice after the record was called for, because that construction would leave no effective time limit for issuing notice and would defeat the legislative purpose. The binding view in Om Metals & Minerals Ltd. was followed, and the contrary approach in Jamnagar Motor Stores was distinguished as arising under a materially different statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The revisional proceedings were time-barred and the impugned revision could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was set aside and the revisional order was quashed, resulting in success for the petitioner on the limitation issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an amended revisional provision prescribes both a period for initiating revision and a further time limit for passing the final order after notice, the authority must act within the amended time framework, and a construction that leaves the issuance of notice without an effective limitation is impermissible.

---