Escaped turnover reassessment upheld where the rule-based jurisdiction existed despite omission of an express rule reference.

Reassessment for escaped turnover was upheld where the authority acted within the jurisdiction conferred by the Sales Tax Rules, even though the order did not expressly mention rule 17(3-A). The omission of the specific rule reference did not invalidate the reassessment because the substance of the action showed that it was made under the delegated power for escaped turnover assessments. Rule 17(3-A), together with the ancillary rule 17(1-A), was considered within the rule-making power under section 19(2)(f) of the Sales Tax Act, as that power covered both escaped turnover assessment and specification of the competent authority. No inconsistency with the Act was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment order was invalid because it did not specifically refer to rule 17(3-A) of the Sales Tax Rules and whether rule 17(3-A) was ultra vires the rule-making power under the Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The order was treated as one made for escaped turnover under rule 17(3-A), and the omission to mention that provision expressly did not vitiate the order when the authority in substance acted within the jurisdiction conferred by the Rules. The rule-making power under section 19(2)(f) of the Sales Tax Act authorised provision for assessment of escaped turnover and for prescribing the authority competent to make such assessment. Rule 17(3-A) and the ancillary rule 17(1-A) were therefore within the delegated power, and no conflict with any express statutory provision in the Act was shown.

Conclusion: Rule 17(3-A) was held to be intra vires, and the reassessment order was sustained.

---