Revisional jurisdiction and limitation under sales tax law: timely notice and order suffice, and retrospective amendment can justify interference.

Retrospective insertion of section 6(1A) of the Central Sales Tax Act justified revisional interference with an exemption earlier granted by the appellate authority, because the turnover had not escaped assessment through inadvertence, omission, or concealment and so did not attract reassessment under section 14. The Deputy Commissioner's action was therefore a valid exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. For limitation under section 20(3), the statute required exercise of revisional power within four years from service of the original assessment order, not service of the revisional order; issuance of notice and passing of the revisional order within time was sufficient.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Deputy Commissioner's action was a valid exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act or a reassessment falling under section 14 of that Act; (ii) Whether, for the purpose of limitation under section 20(3), the revisional order had to be served on the dealer within four years from the date of service of the original assessment order.

Issue (i): Whether the Deputy Commissioner's action was a valid exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act or a reassessment falling under section 14 of that Act.

Analysis: The disputed turnover had been exempted by the appellate authority in light of the law as it then stood. The retrospective insertion of section 6(1A) of the Central Sales Tax Act removed the foundation of that exemption and required reconsideration of the legality of the appellate order. The facts did not disclose any turnover escaping assessment by inadvertence, omission, or concealment so as to attract reassessment under section 14. The Deputy Commissioner therefore acted within the revisional power conferred by section 20(2).

Conclusion: The action was a valid exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 20(2) and not a reassessment under section 14.

Issue (ii): Whether, for the purpose of limitation under section 20(3), the revisional order had to be served on the dealer within four years from the date of service of the original assessment order.

Analysis: Section 20(3) limits the exercise of revisional power to a period not exceeding four years from the date on which the assessment order was served on the dealer. The provision speaks to the exercise of jurisdiction, not to service of the revisional order on the assessee. Once the notice was issued and the revisional order was passed within the prescribed period, later service of that order did not affect its validity. The cited decisions on communication of orders in other contexts did not govern the interpretation of this limitation provision.

Conclusion: Service of the revisional order within four years was not required; the revision was within time.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order was upheld as a proper and timely exercise of statutory power, and the challenge to it failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a limitation provision governs the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, timely exercise by notice and order is sufficient unless the statute expressly requires communication of the order within that period; a retrospective amendment may also justify revisional interference with an exemption granted under the earlier law.

---