No estoppel against a tax statute: revisional power extended to subordinate assessing officer's order and assessment could be reopened.

Rule 33-A treated the Commercial Tax Officer as subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner for section 20 purposes, so revisional jurisdiction extended to orders passed by that officer. Prior representations or Board of Revenue clarification could not prevent reopening of assessment or inclusion of sales of badam, chironji and pista in turnover, because tax liability depended on the Act and the statutory determination of the first purchaser. A departmental instruction contrary to the statute could not create estoppel or restrict the assessing authority's statutory function. The revisional notice was therefore valid and the tax authorities could proceed under the Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Deputy Commissioner was competent to revise the assessment under section 20(2) of the Act on the footing that the Commercial Tax Officer was subordinate to him. (ii) Whether the sales tax authorities were estopped, by reason of prior representations or clarification by the Board of Revenue, from reopening the assessment and including the sales of badam, chironji and pista in the dealer's turnover.

Issue (i): Whether the Deputy Commissioner was competent to revise the assessment under section 20(2) of the Act on the footing that the Commercial Tax Officer was subordinate to him.

Analysis: Rule 33-A of the Sales Tax Rules expressly included the Commercial Tax Officer among the authorities subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of section 20. The revisional jurisdiction therefore extended to the assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer.

Conclusion: The revisional notice was not incompetent on the ground that the Commercial Tax Officer was outside the Deputy Commissioner's supervisory or revisional reach.

Issue (ii): Whether the sales tax authorities were estopped, by reason of prior representations or clarification by the Board of Revenue, from reopening the assessment and including the sales of badam, chironji and pista in the dealer's turnover.

Analysis: Liability to tax under sections 5 and 6 of the Act depended on the statutory character of the commodities and on the determination whether the dealer was the first purchaser in the State. That determination was entrusted by the statute to the assessing authority alone. Any representation or instruction by the Board of Revenue on that question lay outside the statute and could not control the exercise of a statutory power. A representation contrary to the Act could not found any estoppel, because there can be no estoppel against a statute and public policy does not permit the enforcement of an arrangement that would defeat a legislative command.

Conclusion: The plea of estoppel failed and the assessment could lawfully be revised.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition challenging the revisional notice failed, and the tax authorities were held entitled to proceed according to the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: There can be no estoppel against a statute, and no executive representation or departmental instruction can override a tax liability or fetter a statutory authority from performing the function expressly assigned to it by law.

---