Revisional limitation in tax proceedings requires the final order to be passed within the prescribed period, not just initiated in time.

A revisional power under the Orissa Sales Tax Rules was construed as a composite process requiring both initiation and completion within the prescribed three-year period. The Court held that Rule 80, read with section 23(4)(a), does not permit the Commissioner merely to call for records within time and pass the final revisional order later. That reading would undermine finality and certainty in tax proceedings. On this construction, a revisional order made beyond three years from the order sought to be revised is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed, along with any appellate order affirming it.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional order passed by the Commissioner under Rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules was barred by limitation because the revision itself, and not merely its initiation, had to be completed within three years from the date of the order sought to be revised.

Analysis: Section 23(4)(a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act permits revision by the Commissioner subject to the rules. Rule 80 empowers the Commissioner to call for records within three years from the date of the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer and, after hearing the dealer and making necessary enquiry, revise the order. The provision was read as a composite whole and not in a disjoined manner. On that construction, the statutory limit controls the entire revisional exercise, so the final revisional order must also be passed within the prescribed period. An interpretation allowing only initiation within three years but permitting completion much later was held to defeat the object of finality and certainty in tax proceedings.

Conclusion: The revisional order dated 05.09.1996, having been passed beyond three years from the order sought to be revised, was barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. The appellate order affirming it was also quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed and the impugned revisional and appellate orders were set aside on the ground of limitation in suo motu revision proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a revisional rule prescribes a period within which the Commissioner may on his own motion call for records and revise an order, the limitation governs the entire revisional process and the final order must be made within that period.

---