https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158285 The Commissioner retained jurisdiction to exercise suo motu revision over an appellate order passed under the repealed Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 because the revisional proceeding had been initiated under that Act and was preserved by the statutory saving framework. However, the revisional order could not stand because it was a quasi-judicial decision affecting a valuable right and gave no reasons. A cryptic order without supporting reasoning was held unsustainable in judicial review, so the writ petition succeeded to the extent that the revisional order was quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh reasoned decision after hearing the parties. en-us Thu, 08 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:28:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158285 The Commissioner retained jurisdiction to exercise suo motu revision over an appellate order passed under the repealed Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 because the revisional proceeding had been initiated under that Act and was preserved by the statutory saving framework. However, the revisional order could not stand because it was a quasi-judicial decision affecting a valuable right and gave no reasons. A cryptic order without supporting reasoning was held unsustainable in judicial review, so the writ petition succeeded to the extent that the revisional order was quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh reasoned decision after hearing the parties. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 08 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158285