SARJOO PROSAD, C. J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this application prays for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction, quashing the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, dated 22nd January, 1959.
(2.) THE petitioner is a cloth dealer carrying on business in Rota. THE Sales Tax Officer of Kota completed assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1955 - 56 on 7th April, 1956 and allowed him a rebate of Rs. 562/2/ under sec. 10 (5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Act XXIX of 1954 ). Against assessment in question the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Kota Division. This officer under order dated 31. 7. 1956 accepted the appeal and allowed the petitioner a rebate of 20% the minimum permissible under the law as it then stood. THE total rebate thus allowed came to a sum of Rs. 1,156/ -. This order of the Deputy Commissioner became final. Sub-sequently proceedings for assessment during the assessment year 1956-57 were taken out by the Sales Tax authorities. THE Sales Tax Officer by his order dated 31st August, 1957 completed the assessment for the year but at the same time re-opened the assessment for the earlier year 1955-56 in so far as the rebate granted to the petitioner was concerned. THE Sales Tax Officer held that for the said period the petitioner was entitled to a rebate of Rs. 391/- only under sec. 10 (5) of ;the Sales Tax Act. Against this portion of the order of the Sales Tax Officer, reopening the assessment proceedings for the earlier year and deciding about the rebate payable to the petitioner, the latter moved the Sales Tax Commissioner. THE Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax, who heard the application by his order now impugned before us thought that it was not clear from the order of the Sales Tax Officer whether the rebate of Rs. 391/- allowed to the petitioner was in addition to the rebate already granted by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. He accordingly directed that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Salts Tax passed on the previous occasion should be set aside and the case be remanded to the Sales Tax Officer for determining the rebate afresh according to law. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this order is without jurisdiction. He submits that the earlier order of the Deputy Commissioner was not in quest 01. before the Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax, that order had already become final. The petitioner had moved against the illegal order of the Sales Tax Officer reopening the question of rebate granted on the earlier occasion and the Additional Commissioner, therefore, had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Deputy Commissioner granting rebate in favour of the petitioner in connection with the assessment year 1955-56. Sub-sec. (5) of sec. 10 as it stood at the time when the earlier order of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax was passed is as follows: - "in determining the tax for the year 1954-55 the assessing authority shall allow a rebate, varying from 20 per cent to 40 per cent, as may be found necessary, of the tax payable on imported goods by a dealer who had in his stock on the day of enforcement of this Act, goods imported before that date. " The learned counsel contends that the rebate of 20 per cent granted to the petitioner is the minimum rebate permissible under the law and the order so passed was neither erroneous nor illegal nor improper; and there was nothing in the order of the Additional Commissioner in the present instance to indicate that the said order of the Deputy Commissioner granting rebate called for interference. Mr. Kan Singh on behalf of the Department has drawn our attention to the change in the law which came into effect on the 3rd August, 1956 by virtue of Rajasthan Sales Tax Amendment Ordinance, 1956 (Ordinance 3 of 1956 ). By virtue of this amendment the following changes were provided. In sec. (2) of the Ordinance, the amendment is as follows: "amendment of sec. 10, Rajasthan Act XXIX of 1954 - In sub-sec. 5 of sec. 10 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, the following amendment shall be and shall be deemed always to have been made, namely : - (1) for the figures "1954-55" the figures "1955-56" shall be substituted. (2) for the words and figures "varying from 20 per cent to 40 per cent" the words and figures "not exceeding 40 per cent"; shall be substituted; and (3) after the word "date" the words in respect of which import duty of customs had been paid in the State" shall be inserted. " Later the ordinance was replaced by an Act the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Act No. 36 of 1956), which came into operation on the 31st October, 1956. Sec. 2 of the Act which is substantially similar to the terms of earlier ordinance runs as follows: "amendment of sec. 10, Rajasthan Act XXIX of 1954 - In sub-sec. (5) of sec. 10 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (Rajasthan Act XXIX of 1954) (a) (i) for the figures "1954-55", the figures "1955-56" and (ii) for the words and figures "varying from 20 per cent to 40 percent" the words and figures "not exceeding 40 percent", shall be substituted and shall be deemed always to have been substituted, and (b) after the words "date" the words "in respect of which import duty of customs had been paid in the State" shall be inserted and shall be deemed always to have been inserted". It would appear from the above changes in the law that these amendments were retrospective and that they apply to the assessment year 1955-56. The effect of the amendment also was that while the maximum rebate permissible under the law was fixed at 40 % the minimum limit was eliminated so that a rebate of even less than 20 % which was the original minimum limit could be permissible under the law. It is also important to remember that section 14 of the Act which authorised the Commissioner in his discretion at any time suo-motu or being moved by the assessing authority to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and if he considered that any order was illegal or improper or erroneous, to pass such orders as he thought fit, was also amended by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Validation) Act, 1958 (Act No. 30 of 1958) which came into force on the 25th of December, 1958. As the law originally stood the Commissioner could exercise his powers of revision under the circumstances mentioned in the section only in so far as the order of assessment was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue; he had no power originally to revise any such order in favour of the assessee. As a result of the amendment the word "in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" were deleted. The result was that the Commissioner could by virtue of this change in the law exercise his powers of revision also in favour of the assessee either suo-moto or on being moved by the assessee. The other appreciable change was that while originally under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of sect on 14, he could exercise his powers of revision in respect of orders which had been made two years previously and not earlier by the amendment the period of two years was replaced by a period of three years. Therefore, now the commissioner is empowered to revise an order made three years previously. The learned Government Advocate contends that this power of revision was vested in the Commissioner and, therefore, when dealing with the application of the assessee he could suo-moto interfere with the earlier order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 31st July, 1956 and reopen the question of grant of rebate to the assessee as directed by that officer. There is no doubt that this power of revision lay in the Commissioner and he could exercise this power against the order which was passed more than three years previous to the impugned order. Even then the question arises whether he has suo-moto purported to exercise this power within the permissible limits. Where there is nothing to indicate on the face of the order itself that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was illegal or improper or erroneous and the Commissioner doses not find that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was open to any such exception he had no jurisdiction to revise. The only ground which has been given by the Additional Commissioner for the interference is that it was not clear from the order of the Sales Tax Officer which completed the assessment in respect of the assessment year 1956-57 as to whether the rebate of Rs. 391/- given by this officer was or was not in addition to the rebate already granted by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax for the assessment year 1955-56. The Additional Commissioner does not say that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was in any manner illegal or improper or erroneous and it is obvious that the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The power of revision lay with the Commissioner of Sales Tax himself and not with the Sales Tax Officer. Even the latter officer does not say that the grant of rebate by the Deputy Commissioner was erroneous in any respect. That being so, we are unable to find any justification for the [exercise of the revisional powers by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax in the present case. Has it been shown in his order that the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed earlier was erroneous or illegal for certain reasons this Court could not possibly interfere; but as we have said there is no indication in his order of any such objectionable feature as against the earlier order of rebate passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Even under the present law a rebate of 20 % is permissible. In the circumstances we are constrained to set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, reopening the order dated 31. 7. 1956 of rebate passed by the Deputy Commissioner which to all intents and purposes had become final between the Department and the assessee. The application is accordingly allowed and the Rule is made absolute. The parties will bear their own costs. . ;