Wide appellate powers and alternative assessment routes under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act allow new grounds and jurisdiction under section 10(1)(b).

Wide appellate and revisional powers under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 were read to permit a new legal ground to be raised for the first time before the Sales Tax Tribunal, because no express statutory restriction barred such consideration. The text also states that, after deletion of the words limiting section 10(1)(b) to a previous year, assessment in the absence of a return could be made either under section 10(1)(b) or under section 12, and the availability of an escaped-assessment route did not exclude jurisdiction under section 10(1)(b).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a new ground could be raised for the first time before the Sales Tax Tribunal under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954; (ii) whether assessment in the absence of a return could be made under section 10(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 or only under section 12 of that Act.

Issue (i): Whether a new ground could be raised for the first time before the Sales Tax Tribunal under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.

Analysis: The statutory scheme confers wide revisional and appellate powers, and there is nothing in section 14 or elsewhere in the Act restricting the Board of Revenue or the Tribunal from entertaining a new legal ground. The power to pass such order as the authority thinks fit includes authority to consider an additional contention where the facts and circumstances justify it.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the new ground raised for the first time before it.

Issue (ii): Whether assessment in the absence of a return could be made under section 10(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 or only under section 12 of that Act.

Analysis: After the deletion of the words restricting section 10(1)(b) to a previous year, assessment could be framed either under section 10(1)(b) or under section 12. The existence of a possible escaped-assessment situation does not exclude the assessing authority's jurisdiction under section 10(1)(b) where the statute permits both routes. The Tribunal therefore erred in holding that assessment could be made only under section 12.

Conclusion: Assessment was competent under section 10(1)(b), and the Tribunal's contrary view was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was set aside to the extent indicated, and the matter was sent back for decision on merits in accordance with law after hearing both sides.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute confers wide appellate or revisional powers without express restriction, an authority may entertain a new ground raised for the first time, and the availability of more than one assessment provision does not oust jurisdiction under either provision unless the statute so provides.

---