Revisional power and escaped-turnover assessment operate separately; remand for further enquiry was valid and not time-barred.

Section 35 revisional power under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act operates separately from section 19 escaped-turnover assessment: the Deputy Commissioner may correct illegality, irregularity, or impropriety apparent on the assessment record and direct a further enquiry without usurping the assessing authority's separate power over matters outside the record. A remand requiring segregation of taxable and exempt turnover, based on defects found in the record, was treated as a valid revisional step rather than an escaped-turnover assessment. The revisional order was also made within the four-year period under section 35, and later proceedings taken under that order were not barred by the same limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of suo motu revisional power under section 35 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, could set aside the assessment and direct the assessing authority to make a further enquiry, and whether such order was in substance an assessment of escaped turnover or was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 35 and the power to assess escaped turnover under section 19 operate in different fields. Section 35 enables the Deputy Commissioner to examine the legality, regularity, or propriety of orders passed by subordinate authorities and to correct defects found on the record, while section 19 vests the power to assess escaped turnover in the assessing authority on matters outside the assessment record. A remand directing the assessing authority to separate taxable and exempt turnover, based on illegality noticed in the record, is a valid exercise of revisional jurisdiction and does not amount to an infringement of the assessing authority's power under section 19. The revisional order was also passed within the four-year period prescribed by section 35, and subsequent proceedings pursuant to that order are not governed by the same time limit.

Conclusion: The revisional order was valid, did not amount to an assessment of escaped turnover, and was not time-barred.

---