Revisional jurisdiction and resale deduction methods: choosing one reasonable computation over another did not justify revision.

The Assistant Commissioner could not invoke revisional jurisdiction merely because the Sales Tax Officer adopted one reasonable pro rata method for computing resale deduction under section 8(ii) instead of another accepted method. The deduction was undisputed, and the method used was consistent with the assessee's own past assessment and was not illegal, irregular, or improper. Choosing between reasonable computational methods did not amount to a jurisdictional error under section 57, so revision was barred in these circumstances.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 57 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 to revise the assessment on the ground that the Sales Tax Officer's method for computing the resale deduction under section 8(ii) was erroneous.

Analysis: The deduction under section 8(ii) was undisputed, and the pro rata or proportion method had been accepted as a reasonable method where direct identification of resales with purchases from registered dealers was not possible. The method applied by the Sales Tax Officer was consistent with the approach previously used in the assessee's own case and could not be treated as illegal, irregular, or improper merely because another method had also been approved in earlier tribunal proceedings. Since the adoption of one reasonable method over another did not amount to a jurisdictional error, the revisional power under section 57 could not be invoked.

Conclusion: The Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment under section 57 on this ground, and the question was answered in favour of the assessee.

---