Suo motu revision requires factual application of precedent; refund interest must be recomputed after partial repayment.

Suo motu revision cannot be used to restore an assessment by citing a precedent without showing its factual fit to the case, especially where the first appellate authority has found that the sales were completed locally in Tamil Nadu and later movement of goods at the buyers' instance did not convert them into inter-State sales. The revisional interference was therefore treated as beyond jurisdiction. On refund consequences, once that revisional order fell, the taxpayer became entitled to refund interest, and the Department had to re-compute the interest after accounting for amounts already repaid and amounts still retained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional authority could, in exercise of suo motu revisional power, set aside the first appellate order and restore the original assessment by relying on a precedent without showing how that decision applied to the facts of the case; (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund interest and consequential re-computation of interest after the excess tax was refunded in part.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional authority could, in exercise of suo motu revisional power, set aside the first appellate order and restore the original assessment by relying on a precedent without showing how that decision applied to the facts of the case.

Analysis: The first appellate authority had recorded factual findings that the transactions were completed as local sales in Tamil Nadu and that subsequent movement of goods at the instance of the buyers did not convert them into interstate sales. The revisional order rested solely on a cited decision involving materially different facts, where movement of goods was inextricably connected with the sale. The revisional authority did not explain how that ruling governed the present transactions and sought to expand the scope of the original assessment on grounds not forming part of that order. Such enlargement of revision beyond the original basis was impermissible.

Conclusion: The revisional interference was without jurisdiction and the order restoring the original assessment could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund interest and consequential re-computation of interest after the excess tax was refunded in part.

Analysis: Once the revisional order was set aside, the Department's refusal to pay interest on the footing of that order lost its basis. The record showed that refund had been sanctioned and that interest had remained unpaid despite prior directions of the Court. In these circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to refund interest, but the actual computation had to take account of the later events, including the amount already repaid to the Department and the amount still retained, so that the payable interest could be correctly worked out.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to refund interest and the Department was directed to re-compute and pay the amount accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded in substance, the revisional order was set aside, the appellate order was restored, and the Department was directed to complete refund and interest-related consequences in accordance with the Court's directions.

---