Revisional power under sales tax law is not limited by assessment deadlines, though suo motu revision must be exercised within reasonable time.

The revisional power under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 is independent of the limitation governing assessment under section 11(2a) and is not restricted by section 11-A on escaped or under-assessment. The use of the term "Commissioner" across the provisions does not import the assessment limitation into revisional jurisdiction, because the powers operate in different statutory fields. Suo motu revision is nevertheless required to be exercised within a reasonable time, to be judged on the facts; on the facts stated, the revision was made within a few months and was not delayed unduly. The statutory scheme therefore permitted the revisional interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional power under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 is subject to the limitation in section 11(2a) governing assessment; (ii) whether the revisional authority is constrained by the limitation in section 11-A relating to escaped or under-assessment; (iii) whether the same limitation applies to the Commissioner because the statute uses the expression "Commissioner" in sections 11, 11-A and 20(3); and (iv) whether suo motu revision can be exercised only within a reasonable time.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional power under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 is subject to the limitation in section 11(2a) governing assessment.

Analysis: Section 11(2a) prescribes the time within which an assessment under section 11(1) or section 11(2) may be made by the assessing authority. The proviso added in 1959 extends the period for a fresh assessment made in consequence of an appellate or revisional order, but the Act does not prescribe any limitation period for the appellate or revisional order itself. Section 20(3) confers revisional power without expressing a time bar, and the statute's structure shows that the limitation for the fresh assessment after remand cannot be transposed onto the revisional order itself.

Conclusion: The revisional power under section 20(3) is not barred by the limitation period in section 11(2a).

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional authority is constrained by the limitation in section 11-A relating to escaped or under-assessment.

Analysis: Section 11-A deals with assessment or reassessment in cases of escaped assessment or under-assessment. The revisional power is distinct from the power under section 11-A and is exercised to correct an erroneous appellate or assessment order, not to initiate proceedings for escaped turnover under that provision. A revisional order setting right an illegality in appeal does not trench upon the separate statutory field occupied by section 11-A.

Conclusion: The revisional authority is not subject to section 11-A when exercising power under section 20(3).

Issue (iii): Whether the same limitation applies to the Commissioner because the statute uses the expression "Commissioner" in sections 11, 11-A and 20(3).

Analysis: The use of the expression "Commissioner" in the relevant provisions is functional and includes the officer acting in the statutory hierarchy for the purpose of the particular power conferred. The assessment under section 11 is made by the Sales Tax Officer acting as an officer assisting the Commissioner, while the revisional order under section 20(3) is passed by the Commissioner in a different statutory capacity. The authorities exercising those powers are not interchangeable for the purpose of importing a limitation from one provision into another.

Conclusion: The Commissioner is not bound by the limitation applicable to assessment merely because the same designation appears in the provisions.

Issue (iv): Whether suo motu revision can be exercised only within a reasonable time.

Analysis: Although the Act does not prescribe a specific period for suo motu revision, an unreasonably delayed exercise of revisional power may be vulnerable on general principles. What constitutes reasonable time depends on the facts of each case. On the facts before the Court, the revisional order was made within a few months of the appellate order and therefore did not suffer from undue delay.

Conclusion: Suo motu revision must be exercised within a reasonable time, and the revision in this case was within such time.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme permitted the revisional interference and the challenge to the revisional order failed; the appeals were therefore rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes a limitation for assessment but not for appellate or revisional orders, that limitation cannot be read into the revisional jurisdiction, though a suo motu revisional power must still be exercised within a reasonable time.

---