https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161646 The Commissioner's suo motu revisional power under section 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 could be exercised by first calling for and examining the subordinate record; a prior finding that the appellate remand order was prejudicial to Revenue was not required before summoning the record. Prejudice to Revenue was to be assessed only after such examination and hearing. Here, the Commissioner followed the statutory procedure by issuing notice, hearing the assessee, and then choosing not to interfere with the reassessment, while giving guidance for further proceedings. The revisional jurisdiction was therefore validly exercised and the challenge failed. en-us Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Feb 2014 14:50:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161646 The Commissioner's suo motu revisional power under section 20(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 could be exercised by first calling for and examining the subordinate record; a prior finding that the appellate remand order was prejudicial to Revenue was not required before summoning the record. Prejudice to Revenue was to be assessed only after such examination and hearing. Here, the Commissioner followed the statutory procedure by issuing notice, hearing the assessee, and then choosing not to interfere with the reassessment, while giving guidance for further proceedings. The revisional jurisdiction was therefore validly exercised and the challenge failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161646