Suo motu revisional power without express limitation cannot be restricted by importing limits from other provisions.

Section 35EE(4) confers a suo motu revisional power on the Central Government to annul or modify the appellate order, and the provision does not prescribe a limitation period. The High Court declined to read into that distinct power the limitation found in other appeal or revision provisions, and refused to supply a casus omissus. The safeguards in Sections 35EE(5) and 35EE(6) were held inapplicable on the facts because the proceedings did not involve enhancement of penalty or a fresh levy or short levy within those clauses. The show cause notice was found to have been issued within a reasonable time, was within jurisdiction, and was not barred by limitation; the writ petition against it failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notice issued by the Central Government under the suo motu revisional power was without jurisdiction on the ground that no period of limitation was prescribed, limitation under other provisions had to be read into the revisional power, and the notice was otherwise barred or arbitrary.

Analysis: Section 35EE(4) conferred on the Central Government a suo motu power to annul or modify the relevant appellate order, and the provision did not prescribe any limitation period. The existence of limitation periods in other appellate or revisional provisions did not justify importing such a restriction into this distinct statutory power. The power under Section 35EE(4) operated in a different field from the appeal provisions, and the Court declined to supply a casus omissus. The safeguards in Sections 35EE(5) and 35EE(6) were held inapplicable on the facts, because the case did not involve enhancement of penalty or fresh levy/short levy within those clauses. The notice was also found to have been issued within a reasonable time in the circumstances, and the earlier observations in the connected litigation were held to be context-specific and not a bar to the present revision proceedings.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was held to be within jurisdiction and not barred by limitation, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable against the impugned show cause notice and was dismissed, leaving the revisional proceedings to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the legislature has conferred a suo motu revisional power without prescribing a limitation period, the Court will not read one into the provision by analogy with other appeal or revision provisions, and the power may be exercised if done within a reasonable time on the facts of the case.

---