Reassessment and revision under sales tax law: same-material disagreement did not bar revisional action, and notice was held sufficient.

Reassessment for escaped turnover under section 11-A was confined to cases where fresh information came to light after assessment, and not where the assessing authority merely took a different view on the same material. On that basis, revision under section 22-B remained available because the matter did not fall within section 11-A. The notice before revision was also held sufficient because it fairly disclosed the proposed treatment of exempt sales as taxable intra-State sales and gave the dealer a proper opportunity of hearing, without requiring exact quantification before enquiry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Sales Tax Commissioner could revise the Sales Tax Officer's assessment order under section 22-B of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, when the case was said to be one of escaped assessment; (ii) Whether the notice issued before revision satisfied the requirement of opportunity of hearing under section 22-B.

Issue (i): Whether the Sales Tax Commissioner could revise the Sales Tax Officer's assessment order under section 22-B of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, when the case was said to be one of escaped assessment.

Analysis: The distinction was drawn between reassessment for escaped turnover under section 11-A and revision under section 22-B. Section 11-A was held to apply only when information came into possession after the assessment order, and not where the assessing authority had merely taken one view of the facts and law and later another authority formed a different view on the same material. As the Commissioner acted on disagreement with the assessment already made, the matter did not fall within section 11-A. Once section 11-A was inapplicable, there was no bar to revision under section 22-B.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise the assessment order under section 22-B.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice issued before revision satisfied the requirement of opportunity of hearing under section 22-B.

Analysis: Section 22-B required only that the dealer be given an opportunity of being heard and did not prescribe any rigid form or contents of notice. The notice disclosed that the sales earlier exempted were proposed to be treated as taxable intra-State sales and that enquiry would be made for levy of tax. Rule 58 and Form XXV required only the gist of the proposed order. The notice was held sufficient because it fairly informed the dealer of the case to be met, and exact quantification of taxable turnover could not be expected before enquiry.

Conclusion: The notice was sufficient and the requirement of hearing was duly satisfied.

Final Conclusion: Both questions were answered against the assessee and in support of the revisional action of the Commissioner, with costs awarded accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment for escaped turnover cannot be substituted by revision where the later action rests only on a different view of the same material, but revision remains available when section 11-A is not attracted and the dealer has been given fair notice of the gist of the proposed action.

---