Revisional power under sales tax law cannot reopen assessment for mere non-application of mind to existing record.

The revisional power under section 14(4) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 is confined to cases where fresh material not part of the original record later comes to light and justifies reassessment of escaped, under-assessed, or wrongly rated turnover. Mere failure to notice an aspect already available in the assessment record, or non-application of mind to existing material, does not justify reopening. On the facts, the assessment could not be revised merely because the authority had overlooked the purchase of old jewellery from an unregistered dealer and its use in manufacture, so the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessing authority could invoke section 14(4) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 to revise an assessment on the ground that the original assessment order did not advert to a relevant aspect already available on the record, or whether the power under that provision is confined to cases where fresh material coming from outside the record justifies reopening.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 14(4) is intended to bring to tax turnover that has escaped assessment, been under-assessed, or has been assessed at an incorrect rate, but its exercise is subject to notice and enquiry. The governing distinction is between omission to notice material already on record and the existence of material de hors the record that comes to light after assessment. If the necessary material was available in the assessment record but was not adverted to because of lack of diligence or non-application of mind, that by itself does not justify reopening under section 14(4). The provision may be invoked only where fresh material, discovered subsequently and not part of the original record, warrants reassessment. On the facts, the assessment was reopened merely because the authority had not noticed the purchase of old jewellery from an unregistered dealer and its utilisation in manufacture, which was not a legally sufficient basis.

Conclusion: Invocation of section 14(4) on the ground of mere non-application of mind to existing record was not justified, and the assessee succeeded.

---