Suo motu revision cannot target a consequential assessment order passed under binding appellate directions without challenging the appellate order first.

Section 56 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act permits suo motu revision only against the proper subordinate order and contains a bar where the order has already been subjected to appeal or revision. Where an appellate authority has not set aside the assessment but has issued binding directions for a modified assessment, the consequential order passed in compliance with those directions cannot be revised in isolation. The revisional authority must first bring the appellate order itself within challenge under the statutory framework; otherwise, revising the consequential order is impermissible and any remand would be futile because the assessing authority remains bound by the unchallenged appellate directions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Joint Commissioner could invoke suo motu revisional power under Section 56 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 against the consequential modified assessment order passed pursuant to the appellate authority's directions.

Analysis: Section 56 permits suo motu revision of subordinate orders that are prejudicial to the revenue, but it also contains a bar where the order has been made the subject of appeal or revision, and the revisional power must be exercised against the proper order. The appellate authority had not set aside the assessment in an open remand; it had issued directions requiring a modified assessment. The consequential order passed by the assessing authority was therefore bound by those appellate directions. In that situation, the Joint Commissioner could not validly revise the consequential assessment order without first revising the appellate order itself. A remand to redo the assessment would in any event be futile because the assessing authority would remain bound by the unchallenged appellate directions.

Conclusion: The exercise of suo motu revisional power against the consequential modified assessment order was impermissible and unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded, the revisional orders were set aside, and the modified assessment was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellate authority has issued binding directions for modification of an assessment, the revisional authority cannot invoke suo motu revision against the consequential order passed in compliance with those directions unless the appellate order itself is brought under challenge within the statutory framework.

---