Escaped turnover jurisdiction and penalty notice timing do not invalidate proceedings where statutory opportunity to explain is given.

An empowering notification may allow a higher taxing officer to exercise the powers of an assessing authority under the escaped turnover provision, even where the original assessment was completed by a subordinate officer. The revisional framework and corresponding rule likewise support such action against the subordinate authority's order. For penalty proceedings, the statute requires a reasonable opportunity to explain the alleged omission and such inquiry as is necessary; that safeguard is satisfied where the dealer is heard and an inquiry is held. A notice to show cause issued before the final determination of escaped turnover does not, by itself, invalidate the penalty process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commercial Tax Officer had jurisdiction to proceed under the escaped turnover provision and revise the assessment made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed was invalid because the notice to show cause was issued before the escaped turnover was finally determined.

Issue (i): Whether the Commercial Tax Officer had jurisdiction to proceed under the escaped turnover provision and revise the assessment made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Analysis: The expression "assessing authority" included any person authorised by the State Government, and the notification issued under that power enabled higher authorities to exercise the powers of lower authorities within their jurisdiction. On that basis, the Commercial Tax Officer could exercise the powers of an assessing authority under the escaped turnover provision even though the original return had been filed before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and the assessment made by him had become final. The revisional power under the revisional provision and the corresponding rule also supported the competence of the Commercial Tax Officer to act in relation to the subordinate authority's order.

Conclusion: The Commercial Tax Officer had jurisdiction to act under the escaped turnover provision and to exercise revisional powers in the matter.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed was invalid because the notice to show cause was issued before the escaped turnover was finally determined

Analysis: The penalty provision required that before directing payment of penalty, the assessing authority must give the dealer a reasonable opportunity to explain the omission and make such inquiry as necessary. The record showed that the assessee was given an opportunity to explain the alleged suppression and that an inquiry was held. The statutory safeguard was therefore satisfied, and the mere fact that notice preceded the final determination of escaped turnover did not vitiate the penalty proceedings.

Conclusion: The penalty order was valid and was not vitiated by the timing of the notice.

Final Conclusion: Both challenges failed, and the revisional court found no ground to interfere with the assessment on escaped turnover or with the penalty imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute and an empowering notification permit higher taxing authorities to exercise the powers of lower assessing authorities, escaped turnover action and connected penalty proceedings remain valid if the dealer is given a reasonable opportunity to explain the omission before penalty is imposed.

---