Retrospective validation does not bar revision or rectification, and later-exempted turnovers are not escaped turnover.

A retrospective validating amendment that deems earlier assessments and refunds valid does not, by itself, bar statutory revision or rectification of those orders. The validating fiction was directed to securing tax levy and collection on the relevant sales, not to granting immunity from lawful corrective powers under the Act. Turnovers originally included in assessment but later exempted because of an earlier erroneous order were not treated as escaped turnover merely for that reason. The revisional and rectification powers remained distinct from escaped-turnover proceedings, and the revision challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disputed turnovers could be reopened as escaped turnovers only under the provision dealing with escaped turnover, and whether the revisional or rectification orders were barred by limitation. (ii) Whether the validating provision in the amending Act protected the earlier assessment and refund orders from revision or rectification.

Issue (i): Whether the disputed turnovers could be reopened as escaped turnovers only under the provision dealing with escaped turnover, and whether the revisional or rectification orders were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The turnovers had been included in the original assessments and were later exempted only because of an earlier judgment, after which the principal Act was amended retrospectively. In that situation, the turnovers did not constitute escaped turnover. The revisional power and the power to assess escaped turnover are distinct, and the impugned orders were made within the permissible revisional or rectification period.

Conclusion: The contention failed, and the revisional and rectification orders were not invalid on the ground that the matter was one of escaped turnover.

Issue (ii): Whether the validating provision in the amending Act protected the earlier assessment and refund orders from revision or rectification.

Analysis: The validating provision operated by legal fiction to treat the earlier assessments and refunds as validly made under the amended law. That fiction was intended to secure levy and collection of tax on the relevant cloth sales, not to confer immunity from lawful revision or correction under the Act. The provision did not take away the statutory powers of revision or rectification.

Conclusion: The validation clause did not prevent the Deputy Commissioner from revising or rectifying the assessment and refund orders.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the revised tax demands failed, and the revision petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A retrospective validating amendment that deems earlier assessments and refunds to be valid does not exclude otherwise available statutory powers of revision or rectification, and turnovers originally assessed but later exempted by an erroneous order are not treated as escaped turnover merely because of the later exemption.

---