Reassessment powers cannot be extended by rule beyond the Act; Rule 31(5) was invalid for enlarging appellate and revisional authority powers.

The Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules could not expand reassessment powers beyond the Act. The statutory scheme vested reassessment of escaped turnover in the assessing authority under section 14(4), while the appellate authority under section 19(3) could only confirm, reduce, enhance, annul or set aside an assessment, and the revisional authority under section 20 could examine legality or propriety on the existing record only. Rule 31(5), by purporting to confer reassessment powers on appellate and revisional authorities, went beyond the rule-making power under section 39(1) and conflicted with the Act. It was therefore ultra vires and invalid, and proceedings based on it could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether rule 31(5) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1957, was validly made within the rule-making power under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, and whether it could authorise appellate or revisional authorities to exercise reassessment powers conferred by the Act only on assessing authorities.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between assessment and revision. Section 14(4) vested reassessment of escaped turnover expressly in the assessing authority. Section 19(3) empowered the appellate authority to confirm, reduce, enhance, annul, or set aside an assessment, but not to reopen it as a reassessment on fresh materials. Section 20(1) and (2) conferred revisional power only to test the legality or propriety of orders on the record and did not permit the revising authority to travel beyond that record or to undertake a fresh assessment. Rule 31(5), by extending reassessment powers to appellate and revisional authorities, enlarged the statutory powers and conflicted with the limits fixed by the Act. Section 39(1) did not authorise such an extension, because it permitted rules only as to the duties and powers of officers appointed for enforcing the Act, and the Act itself did not assign reassessment to appellate or revisional authorities.

Conclusion: Rule 31(5) was held to be ultra vires the parent Act and invalid, and the proceedings founded on that rule could not be sustained.

---