Escaped turnover and revisional power under sales tax rules: omitted turnover cannot be added through first-time revision.

Turnover omitted from the original return and assessment was treated as escaped turnover under rule 17(1), not as a matter for revisional correction under rule 14(2). Rule 14(2) was confined to correcting assessments already made, including omissions in an existing assessment order, and could not be used to reopen turnover never brought into the assessment record. Rule 14-A likewise applied only where the initial assessment had determined tax at less than the correct amount payable, so it did not authorise first-time inclusion of omitted turnover. The additional assessments were therefore without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the additional turnover could be reopened under the revisional power in rule 14(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, or whether the case fell within escaped turnover under rule 17(1); (ii) Whether rule 14-A empowered the Deputy Commissioner to assess turnover not included in the original assessment.

Issue (i): Whether the additional turnover could be reopened under the revisional power in rule 14(2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, or whether the case fell within escaped turnover under rule 17(1).

Analysis: The disputed turnover had never been included in the petitioners' return or in the original assessment made on them. The omission was due to the assessee's default, and the turnover therefore escaped assessment in the sense contemplated by rule 17(1). Rule 14(2) was confined to revisional correction of assessments already made, including cases where the turnover was before the assessing officer but omitted from the assessment order through error. The assessment records of the local dealers could not be treated as part of the petitioners' own assessment record.

Conclusion: The case fell under rule 17(1) and not under rule 14(2); the revisional power could not be used to reopen it.

Issue (ii): Whether rule 14-A empowered the Deputy Commissioner to assess turnover not included in the original assessment.

Analysis: Rule 14-A operated only where the tax as determined by the initial assessing authority appeared to be less than the correct amount payable. It presupposed an existing determination by the initial assessing authority and authorised the appellate or revisional authority to correct that determination. As the disputed turnover had not been assessed at all in the original assessment, rule 14-A did not authorise its first-time inclusion by the revisional authority.

Conclusion: Rule 14-A did not confer jurisdiction to make the impugned reassessment.

Final Conclusion: The additional assessments were without jurisdiction and could not be sustained, so the petitioners were entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional power under the sales tax rules can correct only an assessment already made, while turnover omitted from the original assessment for the first time falls within the escaped-turnover provision and cannot be brought in by revision.

---