Full Judgment
R.N. Prasad, J.
1. The petitioner was an unemployed graduate. He purchased a mini bus bearing registration No. BPH 8378 under the scheme of financial assistance to the unemployed graduates in the year 1977. It was also registered under the Bihar Taxation of Passengers and Goods (Carried by Public Service Motor Vehicles Act, 1961, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. Temporary permit was granted and it was renewed time to time, He was paying tax on the basis of compounding scheme. The order of assessment was passed on 10-8-1982 for the period 1-1-1980 to 31-3-1982, Annexure-3. NO appeal was filed. However, the petitioner filed an application under Section 14 of the Act before the Commissioner for exercising suo motu revisional power. The petitioner was rejected on 2-9-1987, Annexure-4, The petitioner moved the Tribunal against the said order. The Tribunal refused to interfere with the order of the Commissioner vide order dated 15-6-1988, Annexure-5, The writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders, Annexures 3, 4 and 5.
2. The question for determination in this case is as to whether the Commissioner was justified in rejecting the petition of the petitioner for exercising suo motu revisional power conferred under Section 14 of the Act. Section 14 of the reads as follows:
Subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government under this Act, the Prescribed Authority may, on application of its own motion, revise any order passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder:
Provided that no order passed under Section 7 or Sub-section (2) of Section 6 or Sub-section (3) of Section 9 or under Section 10 shall be revised on application by an owner or other person unless an order under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 has been previously passed in respect of the said order.
3. It is manifest from the aforesaid provisions quoted above that the authority has been vested with the power to revise any order passed under the Act suo motu or on regular petition filed by the assessee. For exercise of suo motu revisional power, there is no need of filing any revision petition. For filing regular petition by the assessee condition has been laid down that assessee must exhaust appellate remedy as has been provided under Section 13 of the Act. In the instant case, the petitioner has not filed any regular petition for revising the order rather has filed a petition before the Commissioner to exercise suo motu revisional power. Such petition cannot be treated as a regular revision petition. The Commissioner refused to exercise revisional power on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted appellate remedy vide order Annexure-4. The said order was affirmed by the Tribunal vide order Annexure-5. A Division Bench of this Court while considering the similar provision under the Bihar Agricultural Income Tax Act in the case of Hazari Sah v. Agricultural Income tax Officer, Sitamarhi and Ors. 1977 PLJR 361, has held that an assessee must exhaust the appellate remedy before going to the Commissioner for revision has no application where the Prescribed Authority feels inclined to revise any order of the assessing authority under suo motu power of revision. It is open to an assessee or the revenue to bring to the notice of the Commissioner any error made by the subordinate authorities and it is up to the Commissioner to consider whether the case is a fit case for exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner in this case has filed a petition before the Commissioner for exercising suo motu revisional power which cannot be termed as regular revision petition and as such rejection of the petition of the petitioner for exercising suo motu power of revision on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted appellate remedy and which has been affirmed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be justified under the law.
4. Thus, on consideration as discussed above, the order of Commissioner, Annexure-4, and the order of Tribunal, Annexure-5, cannot be held to be legal. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The orders, Annexures 4 and 5, are hereby quashed. The patter is remitted to the Commissioner, respondent No. 3 to consider the case of the petitioner by exercising suo motu revisional power in accordance with law.