Wide revisional power under sales tax law can cover escaped turnover, with suo motu revision remaining valid and timely.

The Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 confers wide revisional power on the Commissioner to revise assessments, and that power may extend to bringing escaped turnover into assessment where the Act contains no separate escaped-turnover provision. A transfer of files to the Central Section was upheld because the Commissioner's transfer order was legally operative and remained valid despite the retrospective amendment and the officer-change objection. The revisional proceeding was treated as suo motu rather than a revenue application, so the absence of any statutory right in the revenue to seek revision did not invalidate it. Applying the four-year limit for suo motu revision, the notice was held within time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the transfer of the dealer's files to the Central Section and the assumption of jurisdiction by the revisional authority were valid; (ii) whether the Commissioner's revisional power under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 could be used to enhance the assessment by bringing in escaped turnover and whether the proceeding was competently initiated at the instance of an inferior officer; (iii) whether the impugned revisional proceeding was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the transfer of the dealer's files to the Central Section and the assumption of jurisdiction by the revisional authority were valid.

Analysis: The transfer order of the Commissioner dated 24 October 1962 was in existence and legally operative. In view of the retrospective amendment to section 3(2A), the Commissioner was empowered to transfer a case from one appointed authority to another, and the earlier action stood validated. The contention that the delegation or transfer was ineffective because the Commissioner had ceased to hold office was rejected, since delegation made in an official capacity continues with the office unless revoked. The assumption of jurisdiction by the Central Section was therefore not ultra vires.

Conclusion: The transfer and assumption of jurisdiction were valid and the challenge to them failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner's revisional power under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 could be used to enhance the assessment by bringing in escaped turnover and whether the proceeding was competently initiated at the instance of an inferior officer.

Analysis: Section 20(3) confers a wide power on the Commissioner to revise any assessment or order passed under the Act, subject only to the prescribed procedural limits. As the Act contained no separate provision for escaped turnover, there was no basis to confine the revisional power so as to exclude enhancement on that ground. The report made by the Commercial Tax Officer could not convert the matter into an unauthorised departmental application for revision under rule 82, which was confined to orders of the Commissioner. On a proper reading of the Act and Rules, no right of revision application was conferred on the revenue, and the proceeding had to be treated as one initiated suo motu.

Conclusion: The revisional power extended to enhancement on account of escaped turnover, and the proceeding was not invalid for want of authority in the revenue to apply for revision.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned revisional proceeding was barred by limitation.

Analysis: Once the proceeding was treated as one taken suo motu by the Commissioner, rule 80(5) applied and the period of four years from the date of assessment governed the matter. The notice issued on 2 November 1962 was within four years of the assessment completed on 26 November 1958. The contention that the proceeding was time-barred on the footing of an application by the revenue was rejected because no such right of application existed under the Rules.

Conclusion: The proceeding was within limitation and not barred.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside and the writ petition failed, as the revisional action of the revenue authorities was held to be lawful and timely.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, the Commissioner's revisional power under section 20(3) is of wide amplitude and, in the absence of a separate statutory provision for escaped turnover, may be exercised suo motu to enhance an assessment, subject only to the prescribed procedural limitation.

---