Revisional power cannot replace original assessment; escaped turnover and arbitrary suppression estimates were struck down as unsustainable.

A revisional authority cannot assume the role of the assessing officer and make a fresh original assessment of escaped turnover under section 34; it may only examine legality, propriety, or regularity of the order under revision, so the revisional assessment was without jurisdiction. The five-year limitation for assessing escaped turnover under section 16(1) also governs revisional action made subject to the Act, so a direction or assessment beyond that period is unenforceable. On merits, an estimate based on pocket-book material and an arbitrary multiplication to infer suppressed sales lacked a reliable foundation, so the reassessment could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Board of Revenue, in exercise of revisional power under section 34, could itself make an original assessment and refix taxable turnover; (ii) whether the limitation of five years for bringing escaped turnover to tax under section 16(1) applied to an order made by the Board under section 34; and (iii) whether the reassessment made on the basis of the pocket-book material and the estimate of suppressed sales was sustainable on merits.

Issue (i): whether the Board of Revenue, in exercise of revisional power under section 34, could itself make an original assessment and refix taxable turnover.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 34 is subject to the provisions of the Act and is intended to examine the legality, propriety, or regularity of the order under revision. It does not authorise the Board to step into the role of the assessing authority and undertake an original assessment or best judgment assessment on escaped turnover. Even when fresh material is noticed, the proper course is to test the order under revision and, if necessary, direct further enquiry, not to make the assessment afresh as an original authority.

Conclusion: The Board had no jurisdiction to make an original assessment under section 34, and its order was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the limitation of five years for bringing escaped turnover to tax under section 16(1) applied to an order made by the Board under section 34.

Analysis: Section 16(1) contains a substantive limitation for assessing escaped turnover within five years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates. Because section 34 expressly operates subject to the provisions of the Act, that limitation governs proceedings where the Board seeks to deal with escaped turnover under its revisional power. An order passed after the expiry of that period cannot be implemented through a revisional direction, since the assessing authority itself would then be barred from making an effective assessment.

Conclusion: The Board's order was barred by limitation and was unenforceable.

Issue (iii): whether the reassessment made on the basis of the pocket-book material and the estimate of suppressed sales was sustainable on merits.

Analysis: The material relied upon showed only an entry of profit described as income from an unknown source, and there was no dependable basis to attribute it to the dealer's taxable business. The multiplication of that figure to arrive at alleged suppression of sales was arbitrary and lacked a judicious foundation. The estimate therefore could not stand as a valid basis for revising the assessment.

Conclusion: The reassessment was not sustainable on merits.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revisional assessment and the consequential demand could not be sustained, as the Board exceeded its revisional power, acted beyond the statutory time limit, and adopted an arbitrary basis for estimating turnover.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority cannot exercise powers reserved to the assessing authority, and where the statute prescribes a time limit for assessing escaped turnover, that limit governs revisional action under a provision expressly made subject to the Act.

---