https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160170 A revisional authority that had consciously decided not to initiate suo motu revision, and had communicated that decision to the assessing authority, could not later reopen the matter on a change of opinion. The prior refusal was an active exercise of discretion under section 20, not a mere file noting, so the authority had finally concluded that the case was not fit for revision. In that situation, notice to the assessee did not arise, because the revisional process had already been dropped. The earlier precedent was distinguished on the ground that no prior decision or communication existed there. The Tribunal was therefore correct in quashing the revisional order. en-us Mon, 22 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:50:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160170 A revisional authority that had consciously decided not to initiate suo motu revision, and had communicated that decision to the assessing authority, could not later reopen the matter on a change of opinion. The prior refusal was an active exercise of discretion under section 20, not a mere file noting, so the authority had finally concluded that the case was not fit for revision. In that situation, notice to the assessee did not arise, because the revisional process had already been dropped. The earlier precedent was distinguished on the ground that no prior decision or communication existed there. The Tribunal was therefore correct in quashing the revisional order. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 22 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160170