Revisional power within reasonable time: correction of an assessment error on existing records fell outside escaped-assessment rules.

The revisional power under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was held not to require an express limitation period, though it must be exercised within a reasonable time; a notice issued in 1962 for the 1957-58 assessment was treated as timely. Section 11A was held inapplicable because the dispute did not concern concealed turnover or subsequent information, but an alleged error on material already on record concerning whether liability arose under Central or local sales tax law. The proper source of power was therefore revision under section 20(3), and the revisional order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner's revisional action under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was barred by limitation or required a limitation period to be read into the provision; (ii) Whether the case was one of escaped assessment or under-assessment falling within section 11A of the Act, so that revision under section 20(3) was impermissible.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner's revisional action under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was barred by limitation or required a limitation period to be read into the provision.

Analysis: Section 20(3) contains no express time-limit for exercise of revisional power. The earlier view that a fixed limitation had to be implied was no longer good law. The governing principle was that revisional power must be exercised within a reasonable time, but the notice issued in October 1962 in relation to the 1957-58 assessment could not be said to be outside a reasonable time.

Conclusion: The revisional order was not invalid on the ground of limitation and the challenge on that basis failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the case was one of escaped assessment or under-assessment falling within section 11A of the Act, so that revision under section 20(3) was impermissible.

Analysis: The controversy did not arise from any concealed or subsequently discovered turnover. The same turnover had already been considered on the record, but the assessing authority and the appellate authority had taken different views as to whether the liability arose under the Central or local sales tax law. Section 11A applies to escaped assessment or under-assessment based on definite subsequent information, and not to a situation where the Commissioner seeks to correct an erroneous view already taken on the existing record. In such a case, the proper source of power was section 20(3).

Conclusion: Section 11A did not apply, and the Commissioner validly exercised revisional power under section 20(3).

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the writ petition failed, and the Commissioner's revisional order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a sales tax authority seeks to correct an erroneous assessment on material already on record and the case is not one of escaped assessment or under-assessment based on subsequent information, section 11A is inapplicable and the revisional power may be exercised under the residuary revisional provision within a reasonable time.

---