Suo motu revision power cannot be used for fresh fact-finding or reassessment beyond the statutory jurisdictional threshold.

Suo motu revision under Section 20(1) of the Nagaland sales tax law is permissible only when the Commissioner, on the existing record, first forms a reasoned view that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. That jurisdictional precondition cannot be met by reopening concluded assessments through fresh verification, re-examination of accounts, or a roving inquiry, and the revisional power cannot replace reassessment under Section 14. The revisional authority also cannot determine liability under the Central Sales Tax Act while acting under the State revisional provision. On that basis, the revision proceedings and consequential demand notices were quashed as beyond jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suo motu revision proceedings under Section 20(1) of the Nagaland (Sales of Petroleum and Petroleum Products, including Motor Spirit and Lubricants) Taxation Act, 1967, and the consequential assessment revision and demand notices were without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The revisional power under Section 20(1) is conditioned upon the Commissioner first forming, on the basis of the records called for, a conclusion that the assessment order passed by an officer appointed under Section 5 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. That jurisdictional threshold cannot be crossed by reopening concluded assessments through fresh verification, re-examination of accounts, or a fishing and roving inquiry. The exercise of power under Section 20(1) is distinct from reassessment powers under Section 14 and cannot be used to substitute the revisional authority's own valuation and turnover determination for that of the assessing authority. The impugned orders themselves showed that further inquiry and verification were still being undertaken, which meant the statutory precondition for revision had not been properly satisfied. The revisional authority also travelled beyond the statute by determining liability under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 while acting under the State revisional provision.

Conclusion: The revisional proceedings and the impugned orders were beyond jurisdiction and invalid.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, and the revision proceedings as well as the consequential demand notices were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority can invoke suo motu revision only after independently forming, on existing records, a reasoned conclusion that the subordinate order is both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, and it cannot use that power to conduct reassessment or fresh fact-finding outside the statutory scheme.

---