JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. In these writ petitions, since common questions of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In W.P. (T) No. 6377 of 2007, the petitioner-assessee has prayed for quashing the notice dated 20.2.2007 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.), Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad whereby he has initiated suo motu revision proceedings under Section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and further for a declaration that the impugned notice issued by the Joint Commissioner is bad in law and does not fulfill the mandatory requirement of the Act. The petitioner also seeks a direction upon the respondents to refund the excess amount realized from it by the respondents for which refund applications of the petitioner are pending before them. By filing amendment petition, the petitioner also sought for quashing the order dated 26.11.2007 passed by respondent No. 3 Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by which he has set aside the revised assessment order dated 26.12.2003. 3. In W.P. (T) No. 5892 of 2007, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the entire amount in respect of the petitioners claim under the provisions of Section 15B of the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1984-1985 to 2000-2001 and also for the grant of interest. Pending the writ petition, by filing interlocutory applications amendment was prayed for in the writ petition seeking further relief for quashing the notice dated 26.11.2007 issued by Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Dhanbad purported to be under Section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 on the ground, inter alia, that the Joint Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain application under Section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and further for quashing the final order dated 18.12.2007 passed by respondent No. 3. The Joint Commissioner by which he has set aside the revised assessment order. 4. The Joint Commissioner by which he has set aside the revised assessment order. 4. In W.P. (T) No. 5895 of 2007, similar relief has been sought for by the petitioner seeking direction upon the respondents to refund the excess amount realized from the petitioner under the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 for the assessment years 1984-1985 to 2000-2001 together with interest @ 9% p.a. In this case also, by filing amendment petition, prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 26.11.2007 passed by Joint Commissioner on an application for revision filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dhanbad and further, for quashing the order dated 18.12.2007 by which the Joint Commissioner set aside the revised assessment order. 5. The brief facts of the case as pleased in all the writ petitions are as under: W.P. (T) No. 6377 of 2007 6. In this case, the petitioner M/s. Shivam Coke Industries is a manufacturer of coal and was registered under the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (in short BFT Act 1981). and presently under the provisions of Jharkhand Value Added Tax, 2005. Petitioners case is that aggrieved by the assessment order for the aforementioned assessment years petitioner filed appeals before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). The appellate authority passed order in respect of the financial years i.e. 1988-1989, 1992-1993 and 1996-1997. Thereafter revised assessment orders were passed on 26.12.2003 on the basis of guidelines issued by Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). On the same day Le. 26.12.2003, the Assessing Officer issued notice to the petitioner in respect of excess amount of tax paid by the petitioner for various financial years as well as notice of demand towards the tax amount payable by the petitioner in respect of various financial years. It is stated by the petitioner that on 10.3.2005 application was filed for refund of excess amount of tax after adjustment of the amount to be paid by the petitioner. Accordingly, on 21.8.2006 notice was issued by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to the petitioner to file its refund application before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes since the amount refundable to the petitioner is above Rs. 25,000/-. Accordingly, on 21.8.2006 notice was issued by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to the petitioner to file its refund application before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes since the amount refundable to the petitioner is above Rs. 25,000/-. After more than a month, another notice was issued on 9.10.2006 by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes informing the petitioner that refund would be made only after the disposal of 46(4) proceedings which has been initiated against the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 10.10.2006, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes made an application before the Joint Commissioner for initiation of suo motu proceeding under Section 46(4) of the Act. W.P. (T) No. 5895 of 2007 7. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is engaged in processing of coal to coke. This case also relates to financial years between 1984-1985 to 2000-2001. The revised assessment proceeding was initiated by the respondents which was completed and certain liability was fastened upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said reassessment proceedings, the petitioner challenged the said order before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) which was disposed of by him vide order dated 3.5.2004 remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. It is stated that pursuant to the order of remaned, the Assessing Officer passed final order on 14th and 29th December, 2005 determining the liability of the petitioner. Consequent thereto, the petitioner was served with various demand notices. The petitioner after receiving the demand notices to the satisfaction of the authorities, filed application on 2.5.2006 for refund of excess amount but in the meantime, revision proceeding was initiated by the Joint Commissioner for the assessment year in question and final order was passed on 18.12.2007 setting aside the revised assessment order. W.P. (T) No. 5892 of 2007 8. In this case also, the assessment years relate to 1984-1985 to 2000-2001. In this case, the revised assessment proceedings were completed on 3.5.2004 and certain liability was fastened upon the petitioner. The petitioner moved the Joint Commissioner in appeal who remanded the matter of Assessing Officer for fresh assessment in terms of the orders dated 10.3.2005 and 27.4.2005. In this case also, the assessment years relate to 1984-1985 to 2000-2001. In this case, the revised assessment proceedings were completed on 3.5.2004 and certain liability was fastened upon the petitioner. The petitioner moved the Joint Commissioner in appeal who remanded the matter of Assessing Officer for fresh assessment in terms of the orders dated 10.3.2005 and 27.4.2005. Pursuant to the order passed by the appellate authority, the Assessing Officer, vide orders dated 14th and 29th December, 2005 determined the liability of the petitioner in pursuance of the observations and directions made in the appellate order. After the revised assessment orders were passed, the petitioner made claim under Section 15(B) of the Central Sales Act, 1956 for the reimbursement of tax collected from it in course of inter-state trade and commerce which is said to have been allowed. On 2.5.2006 the petitioner received excess demand notice and refund application was filed. In the meantime, 46(4) proceeding was initiated by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). 9. The common question of law involved in these writ applications are: (i) Whether Joint Commissioner Commercial Taxes can initiate suo motu revision proceeding on the basis of application/letter received from Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes? (ii) Whether after assessment order attained its finality, the same can be reopened by invoking power of suo motu revision by the Joint Commissioner Commercial Taxes under Section 46(4) of the Act? (iii) Whether the action of Joint Commissioner Commercial Taxes in issuing notice and initiate suo motu revision is illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and without jurisdiction in the facts and circumstances of the case? 10. The main thrust of argument advanced by the counsel appearing for the petitioner-assessee are firstly that the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes cannot initiate suo motu revision proceeding under Section 46(4) of the Act on the basis of application filed by the Revenue and secondly, that the assessment order which has attained finality long back, cannot be reopened on the basis of the Supreme Court decisions. 11. Mr. Mittal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner- assessee made the following submissions: (i) The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.) (in short the Joint Commissioner) has been conferred jurisdiction to initiated suo motu revision against the orders of the Assessing Officer. The power has been delegated in terms of notification issued by the State of Bihar dated 28.6.1986. 11. Mr. Mittal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner- assessee made the following submissions: (i) The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.) (in short the Joint Commissioner) has been conferred jurisdiction to initiated suo motu revision against the orders of the Assessing Officer. The power has been delegated in terms of notification issued by the State of Bihar dated 28.6.1986. The said notification does not confer power upon the Joint Commissioner under Section 46(4) to exercise power of revision on an application. (ii) The power to entertain application for initiating revision proceedings has been retained by the Commissioner Commercial Taxes and such power has not been delegated to Joint Commissioner. (iii) Referring to Section 46(3) of Bihar Finance Act, 1981 which prescribes 90 days limitation for making an application for initiation of revision proceedings, learned Counsel submitted that if any application for revision under Section 46(4) of the Act is filed, the same has to be filed along with application for condonation of delay. 12. Learned Counsel further submitted that the original assessment orders were passed long back and being aggrieved by such orders, the assessees preferred appeals. After having been satisfied with the causes shown and abnormality pointed out, the appellate authority passed the order and pursuant to that revised assessment orders were passed in December 2003. 13. In order to show mala fide on the part of the respondents, in the initiation of revision proceedings, learned Counsel submitted that after the change of old set of officers who had carried out assessment proceedings, appeal proceedings and revised assessment proceedings, the new set of officers immediately after joining, reopened the file for the reasons best known to them. 14. Learned Counsel submitted that after the order attained finality, subsequently judgment cannot be made applicable to the case and the entire assessment cannot be reopened. 15. Mr. P. Modi, learned Counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand, firstly submitted that in view of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gall India Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Gujarat (2006) 148 STC 1 (SC), this writ application is not maintainable having regard to the alternative remedy available to the petitioner. Learned Counsel submitted that in other cases, Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances directed the writ petitioners to move the Commercial Taxes Tribunal by filing revision. 16. Learned Counsel submitted that in other cases, Division Bench of this Court in similar circumstances directed the writ petitioners to move the Commercial Taxes Tribunal by filing revision. 16. Learned Counsel then submitted that no limitation is provided for initiation of suo motu revision proceedings under Section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act. The limitation is 90 days for filing revision application is under Section 46(3) of the Act. Learned Counsel in this regard referred decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Swastick Oil Mills Ltd. v. H.B. Munshi (1968) 21 STC 383. Refuting the submission made by the assessee, Mr. Modi submitted that it is not the case where application was filed by the Deputy Commissioner for initiation of revision proceedings, rather only the illegality was brought to the notice of the Joint Commissioner and on such illegality having been brought to the notice of the Joint Commissioner proceeding under Section 46(4) was initiated. Learned Counsel relied upon decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 1995 BRLJ 152. 17. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties, it would be useful first to trace out the legislative history of Section 46(4) of the Act. 18. In the old 1959 Act i.e. Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959, the power of revision was given under Section 31 of the said Act. Section 31 of 1959 Act reads as under: (1) Subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government under this Act, an order passed on an appeal under Sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 30 may, on application, be revised-- (a) by the Deputy Commissioner, if the said order has been passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and (b) by the Board, if the said order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner. (2) Subject as aforesaid, any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Sub-section (1) or by the Commissioner under Sub-section (5) may on application be revised by the Board. (3) Subject as aforesaid any order passed under this Act or the Rules made thereunder, other than an order passed by the Commissioner under Sub-section (5) of Section 8, or an order under Sub-section (1) or (2) or an order against which an appeal has been provided in Section 30, may, on application, be revised. (3) Subject as aforesaid any order passed under this Act or the Rules made thereunder, other than an order passed by the Commissioner under Sub-section (5) of Section 8, or an order under Sub-section (1) or (2) or an order against which an appeal has been provided in Section 30, may, on application, be revised. (a) by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, if the said order has been passed by a Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent; (b) by the Deputy Commissioner, if the said order has been passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or Assistant; Commissioner; and (c) by the Commissioner, if the said order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner. (4) Every application for revision under this section shall be filed within sixty days of the passing of the order which is sought to be revised, but the authority to whom the application lies may admit it after the expiry of the said period of six days if it is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not filing the application within the said period. (5) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act in which any order has been passed by any other authority appointed under Section 8, for the purpose of satisfying "himself as to the legality or propriety of such order and may, after examining the record and making or causing to be made such enquiry as he may deem to be necessary, pass any order which he thinks proper: Provided that no action under this section shall be initiated except before the expiry of four years from the date of the order which is the subject of scrutiny by Commissioner under this sub-section. (6) No order under this section shall be passed without giving the dealer as also the authority whose order is sought to be revised or their representatives, a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 19. From bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is manifestly clear that under Section 31 of the 1959 Act, no restriction was put on the power of the revisional authority under Sub-section (1), Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3) of Section 31 of the Act. 19. From bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is manifestly clear that under Section 31 of the 1959 Act, no restriction was put on the power of the revisional authority under Sub-section (1), Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3) of Section 31 of the Act. Under Sub-section (5), the Commissioner was vested with the power of calling for and examining any record of any proceeding under the Act for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of an order passed by any subordinate authority. Sub-section (5) of Section 31, however, provided that the Commissioner cannot initiate such revision proceedings after the expiry of four years from the date of the order. 20. In 1976, an Ordinance was promulgated by which the Commissioner was vested with the power to call for and examine any record of proceeding and pass any order thereon. The statute did not specify whether this power of Commissioner could be invoked on application by an assessee or any other person. However, the position was made clear in 1977 Ordinance according to which powers could be invoked even on application, provided the application was made within 90 days of the order challenged. A limitation of four years from the date of impugned order prescribed by 1959 Act and 1976 Ordinance for intervention by Commissioner was omitted in the 1977 ordinance. For better appreciation, firstly we shall quote Section 41 of the Bihar Sales Tax Ordinance, 1976 which reads as under: 41. Revision.--(1) Subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government under this Ordinance, an order passed on an application under Sub- section (1) or (2) of Section 40 may. on application, be, revised (a) by the Deputy Commissioner, if the said order has been passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner; and (b) by the Tribunal if the said order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner. (2) Subject as aforesaid, any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Sub-section (1) or by the Commissioner under Sub-section (5) may, on application, be revised by the Tribunal. (2) Subject as aforesaid, any order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Sub-section (1) or by the Commissioner under Sub-section (5) may, on application, be revised by the Tribunal. (3) Subject as aforesaid, any order passed under this Ordinance or the rules made thereunder, other than an order passed by the Commissioner under Sub- section (5) of Section 8, or an order under Sub-section (1) or (2) or an order against which an appeal has been provided in Section 40, may, on application, be revised. (a) by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, if the said order has been passed by a Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent: (b) by the Deputy Commissioner, if the said order has been passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner; and (c) by the Commissioner, if the said order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner. (4) Every application for revision under this section shall be filed within 60 days of the communication of the order which is sought to be revised, but the authority to whom, the application lies may admit it after the expiry of the said period of 60 days if it is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not filing the application within the said period. (5) The Commissioner may call for the and examine the record of any proceeding under this ordinance, in which any order has been passed by any other authority appointed under Section 8 for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety f such order and may, after examining record and making or causing to be made such enquiry as he may deem to be necessary, pass any order which he thinks proper: Provided that no action under this section shall be initiated except before the expiry of four years from the date of the order which is the subject of scrutiny by Commissioner under this sub-section. (6) No order under this section shall be passed without giving the dealer as also the authority whose order is sought to be revised or their representatives a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 21. A consolidated Act was passed amending the law relating to levy of tax for sale and purchase of goods called Bihar Finance Act, 1981. In the said Act, Section 45 lays down the provision of appeal and Section 46 of the Act lays the provision of revision. 21. A consolidated Act was passed amending the law relating to levy of tax for sale and purchase of goods called Bihar Finance Act, 1981. In the said Act, Section 45 lays down the provision of appeal and Section 46 of the Act lays the provision of revision. Section 46 reads as under: 46. Revision.--(I) Subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government an order passed on an appeal under Sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 45 may, on application, be revised by the Tribunal. (2) Subject as aforesaid any order passed under this part or the rules made there under, other than an order passed by the Commissioner under Sub-section (5) of Section 9 or an order against which an appeal has been provided in Section 45 may, on application be revised (a) by the Joint Commissioner, if the said order has been passed by an authority not above the rank of Deputy Commissioner; and (b) by the Tribunal if the said order, has been passed by the Joint Commissioner or Commissioner. (3) Every application for revision under this section shall be filed within sixty days of the communication of the order which is sought to be revised, but where the authority to whom the application lies is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not applying within time, it may condone the delay. (4) The Commissioner may at any time but before the expiry of four years from the date of the order, either on his motion or on application, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which any order has been passed by any other authority appointed under Section 9, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order and may, after examining the record and making or causing to be made such enquiry as he may deem to be necessary, pass any order which he thinks proper: Provided that where an application is filed seeking revision of any order, such an application shall be entertained only if made within ninety days of the communication of the order sought to be revised. (5) No order under this section shall be passed without giving the appellant as also the authority whose order is sought to be revised or their representative, a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (5) No order under this section shall be passed without giving the appellant as also the authority whose order is sought to be revised or their representative, a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (6) Any revision against an appellate order filed and pending before the Joint Commissioner or a revision against any other order filed and pending before the Deputy Commissioner since before the enforcement of this part shall be deemed to have been filed and/or transferred respectively to the Tribunal and Joint Commissioner; and any revision relating to a period prior to the enforcement of this part against an appellate order, or against any other order passed by an authority not above the rank of Deputy Commissioner shall, after the enforcement of this part, be respectively filed before the Tribunal and the Joint Commissioner. 22. In 1984, Section 46 of 1981 Act was substituted by Section 10(2) of the Amendment Act, 1984. Section 10 of the Bihar Finance (Amendment) Act, 1984 reads as under: (10) Amendment of Section 46 of Bihar Act V. 1981 (Part I).--(1) In Subsection (3) of Section 46 of the said Act for the word "sixty" the word "ninety" shall be substituted. (2) For Sub-section (4) the following sub-section shall be substituted namely : "(4) (a) The Commissioner may, on his own motion call for and examine the records of any proceeding in which any order has been passed by any other authority appointed under Section 9, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order and may, after examining the record and making or causing to be made such enquiry as he may be deem necessary, pass such order as he thinks proper. (b) The Commissioner may also revise any order passed by any authority appointed under Section 9 on application seeking revision or such order: Provided that where an application is filed seeking revision of any order, such an application shall be entertained only if made within ninety days of the date of communication of the order sought to be revised Provided further that where the Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not applying within time, he may condone the delay. 23. In Section 7 of the Bihar Finance (Amendment) Ordinance, 1989, Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) has been deleted with effect from May, 1989. 23. In Section 7 of the Bihar Finance (Amendment) Ordinance, 1989, Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) has been deleted with effect from May, 1989. The position now stand is that Section 46 provides for a revision of all appellate and other orders passed by the various authorities under the Act. The power of revision is vested with the Tribunal and the Joint Commissioner which power shall be exercised only on application by any person aggrieved, but subject to time limit prescribed in Sub-section (3) Le. 90 days of the communication of the order. By the said provision, Commissioner has also been vested extraordinary power to initiate suo motu revision proceeding at any time and no limitation has been prescribed. 24. However, power of the Commissioner to initiate suo motu revision proceeding has been delegated to the Joint Commissioner Commercial Taxes (Admn) against the orders of the Officers lower than his rank. Such power has been delegated in terms of notification issued by the then State of Bihar vide S.O. No. 795 dated 28th June, 1986. It is, therefore, clear that under Section 46(4) of the Act, the Commissioner may, on his own motion or on an application, revise the order passed by any authority subordinate to him. But under the delegated power, the Joint Commissioner Commercial Taxes can initiate revision proceedings on his own motion only and not on an application. In other words, the power to entertain application for initiating revision proceeding has been retained by the Commissioner and such power has not been delegated to the Joint Commissioner Commercial Taxes who has been delegated power to Initiate proceeding on his own motion only and not on an application. 25. The question, therefore, that falls for consideration is as to whether the power of initiation of suo motu revision proceeding by the Commissioner is unlimited or he must exercise that suo motu revision proceeding within reasonable time. 26. First of all, we would like to discuss the revisional power both on his own motion or on an application, conferred to the authority under different State Legislation dealing with sales tax. 27. Section 57 of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 lays down the provisions of revision. 26. First of all, we would like to discuss the revisional power both on his own motion or on an application, conferred to the authority under different State Legislation dealing with sales tax. 27. Section 57 of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 lays down the provisions of revision. Under this section Commissioner may, of his own motion, call far and examine the record of any order passed under the Act by any officer or person subordinate to him and pass such order thereon as he thinks just and proper. Proviso to the aforesaid section prescribes limitation of three years only for exercising power from the date of communication of the order sought to be revised. It further provides that no order in revision, shall be made by him after expiry of five years from such date. The proviso further provides that period of limitation of five years shall not apply incase where the point or points involved in the revision proceedings is the subject matter of any proceedings pending before the Tribunal, High Court or Supreme Court and in such case the Commissioner can decide the revision proceedings within eighteen months from the date of notice of hearing served on the assessee. It would be proper to quote Section 57 of the Bombay Sales Act, 1959, which reads as under: 57. Revision.--(1) Subject to the provisions of Section 56 and to any rules which may be made in this behalf, (a) the Commissioner may, of his own motion, call for and examine the record of any order passed (including an order passed in appeal) under this Act or the rules made thereunder by any officer or person subordinate to him and pass such order thereon as he thinks just and proper: Provided that no notice in the prescribed form shall be served by the Commissioner under this clause after the expiry of three years from the date of the communication of the order sought to be revised and no order in revision, shall be made by him hereunder after the expiry of five years from such date. Provided further that the period of limitation of five years shall not apply in a case where the point or points involved in the revision proceedings is the subject-matter of any proceedings pending before the Tribunal, High Court or Supreme Court; and in such a case it shall be competent for the Commissioner to decide the revision proceedings within eighteen months from the date of notice of hearing served on the assessee after the conclusion of the proceeding in the Tribunal, High Court, or as the case may be, Supreme Court. (1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the section or any other provisions of this Act, where the State Government or the Commissioner has initiated any proceedings before an appropriate Forum, against, a point, which is decided against the State by the judgment of the Tribunal, then the Commissioner may pass an order in revision or may issue a notice as provided in this section and pass an order in revision, as he thinks fit, as if the point was not so decided against the State, but shall stay the recovery of the dues including interest and penalty, if any, in so far as they relate to such point until the decision by the appropriate Forum. (2) No proceedings in revision under this section shall be entertained upon application. (3) No order shall be passed under this section which adversely affects any person, unless such person has been given reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) omitted. 28. Similarly Section 47 of the Delhi Sales Act, 1975 confers power upon the Commissioner to exercise power of revision. Under this section, Commissioner may, either of his own motion or on an application filed in accordance with such rules as may be prescribed, call for the records of any proceeding under this Act in which any such order has been passed and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of the Act, may pass such order thereon not being an order prejudicial to the dealer, as he thinks fit. Proviso to Section 47 provides that Commissioner shall not revise any order where an appeal against the order is pending before the Appellate Authority under or where if such appeal lies, the time within which it may be filed has not expired or where in the case of second appeal, the dealer has not waived his right of appeal. Sub-section (2) of Section 47 prescribes limitation of two years to exercise that power from the date of the order sought to be revised. Section 48 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act confers power to the Commissioner for rectification of mistakes. Section 48 reads as under: 48. Rectification of mistakes.--(1) The Commissioner or any person appointed under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 to assist him, may at any time within two years from the date of any order passed by the Commissioner or by that person, as the case may be, on his own motion, rectify any mistake apparent from the record and shall within a like period rectify any such mistake which has been brought to his notice by any person affected by such order: Provided that no such rectification shall be made, if it has the effect of enhancing the tax or reducing the amount of refund, unless the Commissioner or the person appointed under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 to assist him, as the case may be, has given notice in writing to the person likely to be affected by the order of his intention to do so and has allowed such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) The provisions of Sub-section (1) shall apply to the rectification of a mistake by an Appellate Authority under Section 43 as they apply to the rectification of a mistake by the Commissioner. (3) Where any matter has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision relating to an order referred to in Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) the authority passing such order may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, amend the order under Sub- section (1) or Sub-section (2), as the case may be, in relation to any matter other than the matter which has been so considered and decided. (4) Where any such rectification has the effect of reducing the amount of the tax or penalty, the Commissioner shall, in the prescribed manner, refund any amount due to such person. (5) Where any such rectification has the effect of enhancing the amount of the tax or penalty or reducing the amount of refund, the Commissioner shall recover the amount due from such person in the manner provided for in Chapter V. (6) Save as provided in the foregoing sub-sections, and subject to such rules as may be prescribed, any assessment made or order passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder by any person appointed under Section 9 or by the Appellate Tribunal may be reviewed by such person or by the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, suo motu or on an application made in that behalf. (7) Before any order is passed under Sub-section (6) which is likely to affect any person adversely, such person shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 29. Section 67 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 lays down the provision of revision. Under this section, the Commissioner of his own motion within three years or an application made to him within one year from the date of any order passed by any officer, may call for and examine the record of any such order and pass such order as he thinks just and proper within twelve months from the date of service of notice for revision. This section also confers power to the Tribunal to call for and examine the record on application made to it against the order of Commissioner and pass such order as he thinks just and proper. 30. Section 40 of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 lays down the provision of revision. Under this section, Commissioner may of his own motion call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by any officer appointed under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act other than the order of Tribunal, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or to propriety of any proceedings or any order made therein and may pass such order as he may think fit. It further provides that no order shall be revised after the expiry of a period of five years from the date of the order. 31. It further provides that no order shall be revised after the expiry of a period of five years from the date of the order. 31. Section 31 of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax, 1968 confers power of revision. According to this section, the Commissioner may of his own motion call for the record of any proceeding which is pending before or have been disposed of by" any authority subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself so as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or order made therein and may pass such order in relation thereto as he may think fit. Similarly, Sub-section (3) of Section 31 confers power upon the Tribunal to entertain revision on an application made to him against the order of Commissioner within ninety days from the date of communication of the order and may call for and examine the record and pass such order as he thinks just and proper. 32. Section 21 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 confers power to the Joint Commissioner who may of his own motion call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded under the provisions of this Act by any officer not above the rank of a Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order. Such power shall be exercised within a period of four years from the date on which order was passed. It further provides that the power under this section shall not be exercisable in respect of matters subject to appeal under Section 20 of the Act. 33. Section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 confers power upon the Deputy Commissioner to call for and examine of his own motion, any order passed by the officer subordinate to him other than an Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, the Deputy Commissioner shall not pass any order under this section after the expiry of four years from the date of passing of the order sought to be revised. Section 36 confers power of revision on application filed by any person of an order against which no appeal is provided. Section 37 confers power of revision to the Board of Revenue suo motu. Section 36 confers power of revision on application filed by any person of an order against which no appeal is provided. Section 37 confers power of revision to the Board of Revenue suo motu. According to this section, Board of Revenue may suo motu call for and examine any order or proceedings recorded under this Act by any officer subordinate to him. 34. Section 62 of Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 lays down the provision of revision. Under this section, the Commissioner either on his own motion or on an application by a dealer, call for the record of the proceeding and make such inquiry as he considers necessary and pass such order not being an order prejudicial to the dealer or person, as he thinks fit. Further, the Commissioner shall not revise any order where an appeal against the order is pending before any authority or where a second appeal against the order has been filed. It further provides that no revision shall lie against the order determining the liability of a dealer to pay tax or against a notice issued under after assessment. For better appreciation, Section 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 is reproduced herein below: 62. Power of revision by Commissioner.--(1) The Commissioner, (a) either on his own motion, may; or (b) on an application by a dealer or person made within the prescribed period from the date of order, shall, call for the record of the proceeding in which any order was passed and on receipt of the record may make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made, as he considers necessary and subject to the provisions of this Act may pass such order thereon, not being an order prejudicial to the dealer or person, as he thinks fit. Provided that the Commissioner shall not revise any order under this sub- section (a) where an appeal against the order is pending before any authority specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 61 or where, if such appeal lies, the time within which it may be filed has not expired; or (b) where a second appeal against the order has been filed : Provided further, that no revision shall lie (i) against an order determining the liability of a dealer to pay tax or against a notice issued under this Act for assessment except after an assessment order is passed; and (ii) against an order passed under Section 72. Explanation : An order by the Commissioner, declining interference shall not be deemed to be an order prejudicial to the dealer or person. (2) The Commissioner may on his own motion call for the record of any proceeding in which any order under Sub-section (1) has been passed by an order to whom the Commissioner has delegated his powers under Section 62 in pursuance of the provisions of Section 46 and on receipt of the record may make such