Revisional limitation and Central sales tax liability on inter-State cotton sales remain independent under the amended tax scheme.

Section 32 revisional power under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act is treated as a distinct statutory power with its own limitation in section 32(2)(c); the five-year period in section 16(1)(b) for escaped turnover is not imported into revision, so the revisional challenge is not time-barred. Under the amended section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, inter-State sales of cotton after 1 October 1958 remain liable to Central sales tax, and the later validation of earlier assessments supports that position. Prior assessment of some transactions under State sales tax law does not displace Central tax liability, though separate State refund consequences may arise if otherwise available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Deputy Commissioner's revisional power under section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was subject to the five-year limitation in section 16(1)(b) applicable to escaped turnover. (ii) Whether inter-State sales of cotton effected after 1st October 1958 were liable to Central sales tax after the 1969 amendment. (iii) Whether the fact that some transactions had been assessed under the State sales tax law affected liability under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether the Deputy Commissioner's revisional power under section 32 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was subject to the five-year limitation in section 16(1)(b) applicable to escaped turnover.

Analysis: The power of revision under section 32 was treated as a distinct and independent power, separate from the original authority's power to assess escaped turnover under section 16. Section 32 contained its own limitation in section 32(2)(c), and the scheme of the Act did not justify importing the five-year period from section 16(1)(b) into revisional proceedings. The revisional authority was not making an original assessment of escaped turnover but revising the assessment order already passed.

Conclusion: The contention based on section 16(1)(b) failed, and the revision was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether inter-State sales of cotton effected after 1st October 1958 were liable to Central sales tax after the 1969 amendment.

Analysis: The amended scheme under section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 detached Central tax liability from the point at which the same transaction would have been taxed under the local law as an intra-State sale. The subsequent validation of earlier assessments also supported the continued taxability of the inter-State sales in question.

Conclusion: The inter-State sales effected after 1st October 1958 were liable to Central sales tax.

Issue (iii): Whether assessment of some transactions under the State sales tax law affected liability under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: Liability to Central sales tax was held to be independent of whether the same transaction had also suffered State tax. Prior State assessment did not negate Central tax liability, though refund consequences under the State law could arise separately if otherwise available.

Conclusion: The prior State assessment did not bar levy of Central sales tax.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed on all substantive grounds and the taxable turnover as revised was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: The revisional power under section 32 is an independent statutory power governed by its own limitation, and liability to Central sales tax on inter-State sales is not displaced by the point or fact of taxation under the State law.

---