Revisional power under a repealed sales tax law cannot rely on fresh or undisclosed material without fair opportunity to rebut.

Revisional power over an assessment made under the repealed Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 remained confined to the scope of revision that existed under that Act, because section 61 of the 1959 Act preserved accrued rights and liabilities. Fresh material outside the assessment record could not be relied on to enlarge that revisional jurisdiction. Material gathered behind the assessee's back, without a fair opportunity to rebut it, was also impermissible as against the assessee. The commentary therefore states that such revision could not validly proceed on undisclosed evidence and that the order was unsustainable to that extent.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in revisional proceedings initiated under section 32 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 in respect of an assessment made under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, the revising authority could rely upon fresh material outside the assessment record in view of section 61 of the 1959 Act; and whether adverse material gathered behind the assessee's back could be used without giving a proper opportunity of rebuttal.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 12 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 had consistently been understood as a power confined to the record of assessment and did not authorise the collection of fresh evidence outside that record. Although section 32 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 used wider language and permitted further enquiry, the saving provision in section 61 preserved the rights and liabilities already accrued under the repealed Act. An assessment made under the 1939 Act therefore remained liable to revision only within the limits of the revisional jurisdiction that existed under that Act. The authority could not, to the detriment of the assessee, enlarge the scope of revision by resorting to fresh evidence or undisclosed statements collected after the assessment. Further, material relied upon by the revising authority, having been obtained in the absence of the assessee and without an opportunity to challenge it, could not validly be used against the assessee.

Conclusion: The revisional order was without jurisdiction insofar as it rested on fresh material outside the assessment record, and the undisclosed material could not be used against the assessee. The challenge succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The assessment revision could not be sustained, and the petitioner was entitled to relief and costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessment made under a repealed sales tax statute is sought to be revised after repeal, the revisional authority is confined by the saving clause to the scope of revisional power that existed under the repealed Act and cannot rely on fresh material outside the assessment record, especially if such material was collected without giving the assessee an opportunity to meet it.

---