- (1.) R. K. Gulati, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against three orders, all dated 4-12-1992 passed by the Deputy Sugar Cane Commissioner, Meerut, in relation to different months in respect of the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92. The orders under challenge were made in the purported exercise of the powers con tained in Section 3-B of the U. P Sugar Cane (Purchase lax) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred as "the Act". In the instant case sub-section (1) of Section 3-B is the only relevant provision with which we are concerned. The said provision reads as under- "3-B. Revision.- (I) The cane Commis sioner, in the case of a factory, and the Sugar Commissioner or any other officer, not below the rank of Assistant Sugar Cane Commis sioner, authorised by the Sugar Commissioner in this behalf, in the case of a unit, may in order to satisfy himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by an assessing authority under this Act, call for an examine either on his own motion or on the application of the assessee or the State Government, to be made within six months of the date of the order, the record of any proceedings of assessment and pass such orders as he may think fit: Provided that no such application shall be entertained at the instance of a party which has a right of appeal but does not avail of it: Provided further that no enhancement shall be made under this Section unless the assessee has been afforded a reasonable oppor tunity of being heard against the enhancement. "
(2.) BY the orders impugned the Deputy Sugar Cane Commissioner, Meerut, has revised certain assessment or ders directing enhancement of purchase tax which was originally assessed by the assessing authority by the respective as sessment orders under revision. During the course of argument learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the legality of the impugned orders on two fold submissions. It was contended that in exercising the power of revision under Section 3-B of the Act, the Deputy Sugar Cane Commissioner was not entitled to go into the questions of fact. The Commissioner, it was urged, could not revise an assessment order on matters which were in the realm of factual state of affairs nor could be examine the question about the quantum of sugarcane cultivated by the petitioner or its consumption for the purposes of crushing. Likewise, the revising authority was not competent to go into the question of quantum of sugarcane that the petitioner may have purchased from the market particularly when the finding of the assessing authority was that the petitioner had not purchased any sugarcane and had crushed the sugar cane which cultivated by the petitioner on his own fields. Now on a plain reading of sub-sec tion (1) of Section 3-B it would be evident that the revising authority may revise any order of assessing authority on an applica tion of the assessee or the State Govern ment or on his own motion i. e. suo moto. However, the revising authority can only act where the "illegality" or "impropriety" of an order comes to its notice and the action is taken "for the purpose of satisfy ing itself as to the legality or propriety" of the order which is passed by the assessing authority under the Act. The exercise of power under the said provision is not de pendent on the fulfilment of any condition precedent. However, before invoking the powers under Section 3-B the revising authority must be satisfied that the relevant order is improper, illegal or un just or the order levying the purchase tax is substantially adverse to the financial inter est of the State or the assessee. To put it differently the revisional jurisdiction under the provisions aforesaid extends not only to a consideration of the question of legality of an order passed, but also to a consideration of the correctness or just ness of such order. The provisions under discussion are intended to be exercised both in the interest of the State as also for the assessee.
(3.) THE expression used is the "legality or impropriety of any order passed. " THE word propriety has various shade of mean ings. In the Oxford English Dictionary it has been stated to mean fitness; ap propriateness; attitude; suitability; appropriateness to the circumstances or con ditions; conformity with the requirements, rules or principle; Tightness; correctness, justness, accuracy. " The context in which the expres sion "propriety" has been used in Section 3-B of the Act, it must be interpreted as relating to the correctness, justness, ac curacy or appropriateness 01 the orders, which are amenable to the revising authority under the said provisions. That is relevant is that there is no omission on the part of the assessing authority which may jeopardise the fiscal interest of the revenue nor an excessive assessment has been made to the disadvantage of the tax payer. The revising authority has been entrusted the power to call for and ex amine the record of any proceedings of assessment and to go through them, and then pass such appropriate order as the circumstances may warrant in a given case having regard to the material available so that justice is done between the State and the tax payer. The second proviso attached to sub-section (1) of the Section 3-B says that if the order proposed would affect the assessee adversely, in the sense that an enhancement in the tax is proposed, then unless the assessee has been afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the proposed assessment, no order should be made. There no limitation provided in Section 3-B that the revising authority cannot interfere on a question of fact nor any such impediment can be im posed on powers of tne revising authority under those provisions. The revising authority in his discretion may interfere with order of an assessing authority where the assessment is based on no evidence or on misreading of evidence or when facts admitted are not taken not of in framing the assessment order. Likewise an order of the subordinate authority is liable to be interfered with where it is based on matters not in evidence and the view taken by that authority lacks of appreciation of the true legal position. It is the lack of sufficient co-relation between the evidence and the decision that constitutes a source of im propriety.;