Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited vs Commissioner for Commercial Taxes, Board of Revenue (C.T.) and Another

Veeraswami, C.J.—We think that this petition is covered by the decision of a Division Bench to which one of us was a party, in Raj

Brothers Agencies Vs. The Board of Revenue, . The point is whether, u/s 25 of the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1939, the power

of the Board of Revenue could be invoked on an application or it is confined to the Board itself invoking the power suo motu. We do not have the

slightest doubt that, where a power is vested in a public authority, as u/s 25 of the Act, to call for and examine the record of any order passed by a

lower authority, such power could either be invoked suo motu or on an application by a party aggrieved. The substance of the matter is that the

investiture is by the Legislature of the power of revision in the particular authority. For instance, Section 115 of the CPC vests in the High Court

revisional power in terms identical with those of Section 25 of the Madras Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1939 and still down the decades

this court has very rarely invoked the power suo motu. The power has always been invoked by this court on applications by aggrieved parties.

Even if Section 25 has prescribed the power of revision to be exercised suo motu, the power could be invoked on an application by the aggrieved

party. Once the power is found vested, it makes no difference how it is invoked, either suo motu or on an application by the aggrieved party. In

this particular case, the Board took the view that the power could not be invoked on an application by the assessee and that view is clearly wrong.

The learned First Assistant Government Pleader, however, contends that the latter half of the impugned order dealt with merits of the

assessment. That is no doubt true. But the order has given no reasons and it is quite perfunctory. We are not satisfied that the Board has properly

applied its mind to the merits of the issues involved. On that view, the writ petition is allowed with a direction that the Board of Revenue will

dispose of the relative petition afresh in accordance with law. No costs.

In view of the above direction, W.P. No. 1233 of 1967 becomes unnecessary and it is dismissed. No costs.