Mandatory reasons for review: surcharge reassessment failed because the authority merely repeated an audit objection.

Rule 32 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 required the reviewing authority acting under section 47 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 to record independent reasons before reopening a surcharge order. The court found that the review orders relied only on the audit objection and did not show any separate satisfaction that there was a mistake apparent from the record or that the surcharge objection was otherwise sustainable. Mere repetition of the audit objection was insufficient to meet the mandatory requirement of reasons. The review orders were therefore invalid, and the consequential appellate and tribunal orders were set aside, with the assessee entitled to refund or adjustment with interest.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review orders imposing surcharge were valid when the reviewing authority recorded only the audit objection and did not independently record reasons as required by the Rules.

Analysis: Rule 32 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 required the authority reviewing an order under section 47 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 to record reasons for doing so. The recorded basis of review showed only reliance on the audit objection and did not disclose any independent satisfaction by the assessing authority on the existence of a mistake apparent from the record or on the sustainability of the surcharge objection. Mere repetition of the audit objection was held insufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirement of recording reasons.

Conclusion: The review orders were invalid and could not be sustained; the challenge succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The surcharge review orders and the consequential appellate and tribunal orders were set aside, and the assessee became entitled to refund or adjustment of the amount with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute or rule makes recording of reasons mandatory for review, the reviewing authority must exhibit independent application of mind and cannot act merely on an audit objection.

---