K. Packirisamy Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement I), Tiruvarur,

.....had been granted to a person under the relevant provisions of the act, then to set right that mistake, the director should be enabled to exercise his power so as to effectuate the scheme of the act and to implement the purpose behind the act. the fact that the rule making authority has prescribed procedure in exercise of the powers under section 67 for making an application to the director does not mean that the suo motu power which is explicit in section 5(2) of the act is in any way curtailed or taken away. therefore, the contention of the respondent that making an application is sine qua non for invoking the power under section 5(2) of the act is not tenable. -- t.n. estates (abolition & conversion into ryotwari) act, 1948. sections 5(2) & 67; suo motu revisional powers held, on a bare reading of the provisions of section 5(2) of the act, it is clear that the power conferred on the director by section 5(2) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts or proceedings of the settlement officer is very wide. in the first place, the director need not necessarily be moved by any party in that behalf, and the power could be exercised either on an application by an aggrieved person or suo motu. for example, if the director comes to know that contrary to the scheme of the act or due to misrepresentation or fraud played, a patta had been granted to a person under the relevant provisions of the act, then to set right that mistake, the director should be enabled to exercise his power so as to effectuate the scheme of the act and to implement the purpose behind the act. the fact that the rule making authority has prescribed procedure in exercise of the powers under section 67 for making an application to the director does not mean that the suo motu power which is explicit in section 5(2) of the act is in any way curtailed or taken away. therefore, the contention of the respondent that making an application is sine qua non for invoking the power under section 5(2) of..........as it may consider necessary, and it shall give the dealer a receipt of the same; that it may retain all the said document which may be necessary for their examination and for any inquiry, but beyond that no jurisdiction is conferred on them to levy tax.3. in support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon section 41(3) of the tamil nadu general sales tax act, which reads as follows:-section 41(3) if any such officer has reason to suspect that any dealer is attempting to evade the payment of any tax, fee or other amount due from him under this act, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, seize such accounts, registers, records or other documents of the dealer as he may consider necessary, and shall give seized shall be retained by such officer only for so long as may be necessary for their examination and for any inquiry or proceeding under this act.provided that such accounts, registers, records and documents shall not be retained for more than thirty days at a time except with the permission of the next higher authority in which case they could be retained upto a period of ninety days at a time.4. the legal position pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is perfectly valid. if at all, the respondents can seize the documents and retain for sometime. whereas in this case, the respondent has assessed the tax and recovered a cheque for a sum of rs. 1 lakh, which was encashed by him. the levy and collection of the said tax is without jurisdiction. hence, the order impugned in this writ petition is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. the respondents are directed to transfer the amount recovered from the petitioner to the regular assessing authority, namely, the third respondent, who is directed to adjust it towards the tax dues.5. with the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. no costs. consequently, connected wpmp is closed.