Revisional jurisdiction versus reassessment: assessment legality may be revisited under later law, while exemption needs factual proof.

Revisional jurisdiction under section 20(2) was held available to test the legality of an assessment order in light of the law as later declared, and not confined to cases of escaped turnover under section 14(4); the Deputy Commissioner was therefore competent to proceed under revision. For the disputed groundnut turnover sold to millers, exemption depended on proof that particular purchases were made for resale rather than milling, and the assessees bore that burden; because no finding had been recorded on the extent of such purchases, the taxability and exemption question was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh factual determination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Deputy Commissioner could validly exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act instead of resorting to reassessment under section 14(4). (ii) Whether the disputed turnover representing sales of groundnut kernel or groundnuts to millers within the State was taxable, and to what extent exemption was available where the assessee purchased part of the turnover for milling and part for resale.

Issue (i): Whether the Deputy Commissioner could validly exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act instead of resorting to reassessment under section 14(4).

Analysis: Section 14(4) applies where turnover has escaped assessment, has been under-assessed, or has been assessed at a lower rate, and it authorises reopening within the prescribed period for those contingencies. Section 20(2), by contrast, empowers the revisional authority to examine the legality or propriety of an order already made by a subordinate authority. The Court distinguished cases where escaped turnover is discovered from cases where an assessment, though correct on the date it was made, became illegal in the light of a later authoritative declaration of law. On the facts, the Deputy Commissioner was examining the legality of the assessment order after the Supreme Court had settled the applicable legal position, and the case fell within the revisional power rather than reassessment of escaped turnover.

Conclusion: The Deputy Commissioner was competent to act under section 20(2), and the Tribunal erred in holding otherwise.

Issue (ii): Whether the disputed turnover representing sales of groundnut kernel or groundnuts to millers within the State was taxable, and to what extent exemption was available where the assessee purchased part of the turnover for milling and part for resale.

Analysis: The Court held that the Supreme Court had not finally decided the precise position where a miller purchases part of the groundnut for milling and the rest for resale. The burden lay on the assessees to establish that any part of the turnover was purchased with the intention of resale. The Tribunal had not recorded any finding on the extent, if any, of such purchases, and the matter required factual determination before relief could be granted.

Conclusion: The question of exemption and taxability on this aspect was left for fresh determination by the Tribunal on remand.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order was sustained on jurisdiction, but the matter was sent back for a fresh factual decision on the extent of turnover, if any, entitled to exemption.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction may be exercised to test the legality of an assessment order in the light of the law as it stands when revision is taken up, and it is distinct from reassessment of escaped turnover under the statutory reopening provision.

---