Reasonable-time limit for suo motu revision prevents reopening finalised assessments on the basis of later Supreme Court rulings.

A suo motu revisional power under the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act must be exercised within a reasonable time even if no express limitation is prescribed, and a revision initiated after nearly six years was treated as invalid. The Court also held that completed assessment orders, once acted upon and finalised in the assessee's favour, could not be reopened merely because a later Supreme Court decision took a different view. The concluded position could not be disturbed without a fresh lawful basis, and the assessee's relief was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional authority could exercise suo motu revision after a lapse of more than five years under Section 31 of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968; (ii) Whether a later Supreme Court decision could be used to reopen assessment orders that had already attained finality and had earlier been acted upon in favour of the assessee.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional authority could exercise suo motu revision after a lapse of more than five years under Section 31 of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968.

Analysis: The revisional power, though not expressly limited by a period of limitation, had to be exercised within a reasonable time. The Court relied on the settled principle that where the statute is silent, the nature of the power, the statutory scheme and the rights affected determine reasonableness. It noted that comparable precedents had treated delays of several years as impermissible and that, in the present case, the attempted revision came almost six years after the order sought to be revised. The statutory structure also indicated that five years was the outer limit in related assessment provisions, reinforcing that a later attempt to revise the order could not be treated as timely.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee. The suo motu revision after more than five years was held to be beyond a reasonable time and invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether a later Supreme Court decision could be used to reopen assessment orders that had already attained finality and had earlier been acted upon in favour of the assessee.

Analysis: The Court held that the assessee's assessments had already been concluded on the basis of the then prevailing legal position and the Assessing Authority's order granting relief. Once such a concluded position had been adopted, it was not open to the Department to reopen it merely because a later decision of the Supreme Court had taken a different view. The Court also noted that the earlier relief had been granted on the footing of the concession and the binding effect of the governing doctrine applicable to industrial incentives, and that the subsequent notice sought to disturb a finalized position without a fresh and lawful basis.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee. The later Supreme Court ruling could not be used to unsettle the concluded assessment orders in the manner attempted.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered for the assessee on the substantive issues decided, the revisional and appellate orders were set aside, and the Assessing Authority's order granting relief was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A suo motu revisional power must be exercised within a reasonable time even where no express limitation is prescribed, and a concluded assessment cannot be reopened merely on the strength of a later judicial decision after the matter has attained finality.

---