Reopening of escaped turnover was invalid where the item had already been exempted and no apparent record error existed.

Turnover already considered and expressly exempted in the original assessment could not be reopened as escaped turnover under section 12-A of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. If the exemption was wrong on the law, the proper remedy was revision under section 21, not reassessment based on escaped turnover. Rule 38 did not apply because it is confined to mistakes apparent on the record, whereas the proposed action rested on a later expert opinion rather than any evident error in the assessment file. The notices were therefore without jurisdiction and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notices issued to reopen assessment of coriander turnover as escaped turnover under section 12-A read with rule 38 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 were valid, when the turnover had already been considered and exempted in the original assessment and the alleged error rested on subsequent expert opinion.

Analysis: Turnover already brought before the assessing authority and expressly exempted on a view of law cannot be treated as escaped turnover for proceedings under section 12-A. If the exemption granted in the original assessment was erroneous, the proper course was revision under section 21, not reopening under section 12-A. The notice itself proceeded on the footing that the omission was improper because coriander was said to be a spice, which was a ground relevant to revisional correction and not to escaped turnover. Rule 38 was also inapplicable, because it applies only where there is a mistake apparent on the record, whereas the proposed action depended on an expert opinion obtained later and not on any apparent error in the assessment record.

Conclusion: The notices were without jurisdiction and unsustainable; the challenge succeeded in favour of the petitioners.

---