Revisional jurisdiction under sales tax law cannot admit fresh evidence to bypass reassessment limits and reopen final orders.

Revisional jurisdiction under the U.P. Sales Tax Act is confined to examining the legality or propriety of the impugned order on the existing record, unlike appellate power, and does not include an express power to admit fresh evidence except for limited procedural aids to clarify that record. The text also states that revision cannot be used to reopen escaped turnover matters after the reassessment period has expired or to bypass the limitation scheme under section 21. On that reasoning, fresh evidence was excluded and the reference was answered against the department.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional authority under the U.P. Sales Tax Act had power to admit additional evidence in revision; (ii) whether fresh evidence could be used in revision to reopen a matter that would otherwise fall under reassessment barred by limitation under section 21.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional authority under the U.P. Sales Tax Act had power to admit additional evidence in revision

Analysis: The revisional power under section 10(3) is directed to satisfying the authority about the legality or propriety of an order already made by the assessing or appellate authority. The reasoning treats revision as distinct from appeal and holds that the Act and the Rules do not confer an express power on the revisional authority to receive fresh material in the same manner as the appellate authority. The power to summon witnesses or require production of documents is distinguished from the separate power to admit additional evidence, and the scheme of the Act is read as confining revision to the existing record, except for limited procedural aids to clarify that record.

Conclusion: The revisional authority had no power, on these facts, to admit the additional evidence.

Issue (ii): Whether fresh evidence could be used in revision to reopen a matter that would otherwise fall under reassessment barred by limitation under section 21

Analysis: The fresh material was sought to be brought on record after the expiry of the period prescribed for reassessment. The reasoning holds that revision cannot be employed to bypass the statutory limitation for reassessment or to secure a fresh inquiry into escaped turnover under the guise of revision. Allowing such evidence would defeat the finality of the appellate order and undermine the separate scheme under section 21 for reassessment within the prescribed time.

Conclusion: Fresh evidence could not be used in revision to circumvent the limitation under section 21.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the department, and the assessee succeeded with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction under the Act is confined to testing the legality or propriety of the impugned order on the existing record and cannot be used to introduce fresh evidence so as to bypass the distinct reassessment mechanism or its limitation period.

---