Retrospective sales tax amendment cannot reopen a Tribunal-final assessment where the assessing authority lacks revisional power.

A retrospective increase in sales tax rate did not, by itself, authorise the assessing authority to reopen an assessment that had already attained finality through a Tribunal order. Rule 17(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, read with the scheme of rule 17 as a whole and the limits on departmental power, was confined to revision of the authority's own assessment order and did not extend to a final appellate order. Rule 18(1) on rectification also could not be used, because the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer had no power to rectify the Tribunal's decision. The revisional order was therefore without jurisdiction and could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessing authority could, under rule 17(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939, revise an assessment that had already attained finality by the Tribunal's order after a retrospective amendment increased the applicable rate of tax.

Analysis: The amended sales tax provision operated retrospectively, so the earlier assessment had been made at too low a rate in law. Even so, the machinery for giving effect to the amendment had to be found within the Sales Tax Act and Rules. Rule 17(3) was construed in the context of the scheme of rule 17 as a whole, including rule 17(3-A) and the limits placed on departmental powers. On that construction, the assessing authority could revise only its own assessment order and not an assessment which had become final by order of the Tribunal. Rule 18(1) relating to rectification also could not assist, because the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer had no power to rectify the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion: The revisional order made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained. The petitioner's challenge succeeded.

---