Revisional power and inter-State sales tax jurisdiction clarified: limitation on reassessment does not restrict separate revision.

A revisional power under section 21 of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act was treated as distinct from reassessment under section 11-A, so the three-year limitation attached to reassessment did not control revision. The Commissioner could therefore revise earlier orders on legality or propriety. The document also states that, after the amendment to section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, jurisdiction to levy and collect tax on inter-State sales lay with the State from which the movement of goods commenced, not with Punjab merely because title documents were transferred there. On that basis, the Punjab notices were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional power under section 21 of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was controlled by the three-year limitation in section 11-A of that Act. (ii) Whether the Punjab authorities had jurisdiction to levy and collect Central sales tax on inter-State sales of goods moving from Bombay to Punjab after the amendment to section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional power under section 21 of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 was controlled by the three-year limitation in section 11-A of that Act.

Analysis: Section 11-A dealt with reassessment by the Assessing Authority and expressly imposed a time limit of three years. Section 21, by contrast, conferred a distinct revisional power on the Commissioner to call for records and pass such order as he thought fit on questions of legality or propriety. The two powers operated in different fields, and nothing in section 21 imported the limitation attached to section 11-A. The legislative scheme showed that if a limitation had been intended for revision, it would have been stated expressly.

Conclusion: The revisional power under section 21 was not subject to the three-year limit in section 11-A, and the Additional Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner had authority to revise the earlier orders.

Issue (ii): Whether the Punjab authorities had jurisdiction to levy and collect Central sales tax on inter-State sales of goods moving from Bombay to Punjab after the amendment to section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: Before 1 October 1958, the place of transfer of title had relevance under the earlier scheme. After the amendment, section 9 made the tax payable under the Act on inter-State sales leviable and collectible by the Government of India in the State from which the movement of goods commenced. Since the disputed sales were admitted inter-State sales and the movement commenced from Maharashtra, Punjab authorities could not assume jurisdiction merely because documents of title were transferred at Amritsar. The issuance of notices to proceed with assessment therefore disclosed an asserted jurisdiction that the officer did not possess.

Conclusion: The Punjab authorities had no jurisdiction to levy or collect Central sales tax on the disputed sales, and the notices issued were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded because the revisional power was not time-barred, but the Punjab officer lacked legal authority to proceed with the Central sales tax assessment, so the impugned notices could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional power conferred separately from reassessment is not subject to the limitation governing reassessment unless the statute so provides, and after the amendment to section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, jurisdiction to levy and collect tax on inter-State sales lies only with the State from which the movement of goods commenced.

---