Suo motu revisional power and reassessment limits: limitation for revision applications does not constrain Commissioner-initiated review.

A suo motu revisional notice under section 20(3) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act is not governed by the limitation applicable to revision applications under rule 66(2), because that rule applies only when revision is sought by a party and not when the Commissioner acts on his own motion. Reassessment under section 11A requires definite post-assessment external information showing escaped turnover; it cannot rest on a mere reappraisal of material already on record. On this reasoning, the notice was treated as a valid revisional notice and not as a time-barred reassessment notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a notice issued for suo motu revision under section 20(3) was barred by the limitation in rule 66(2) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951; (ii) whether the notice was in substance a notice for assessment or reassessment under section 11A and therefore time-barred.

Issue (i): whether a notice issued for suo motu revision under section 20(3) was barred by the limitation in rule 66(2) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951

Analysis: Section 20(3) confers revisional power on the Commissioner both on application and on his own motion. The limitation in rule 66(2), which speaks of an application for revision, governs only revision invoked by a party and not revision initiated suo motu by the Commissioner. The revisional power exercised on the Commissioner's own motion is not subject to any prescribed time-limit under that rule.

Conclusion: The notice was not barred by rule 66(2) insofar as it was a suo motu revision under section 20(3).

Issue (ii): whether the notice was in substance a notice for assessment or reassessment under section 11A and therefore time-barred

Analysis: Section 11A can be invoked only when the Commissioner acts on definite information derived from an external source after the original assessment and is satisfied that turnover has escaped assessment. The record material on which the notice rested was already before the assessing authority, and the notice disclosed only a different view about the same material. The power of reassessment under section 11A is distinct from the wider supervisory revisional power under section 20(3), and the former cannot be used absent the statutory condition of external information.

Conclusion: The notice was not a notice under section 11A and was not barred on that basis.

Final Conclusion: The revisional notice was valid, the writ petition failed, and the appeal was allowed by setting aside the single judge's order.

Ratio Decidendi: A suo motu revisional notice under section 20(3) is not controlled by the limitation applicable to revision applications, and reassessment under section 11A requires definite post-assessment external information, not merely a reappraisal of material already on record.

---