Discharge of reassessment notice does not replace original assessment; revision must still comply with limitation.

An order under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act that merely discharges a notice and records that no turnover escaped assessment does not replace the earlier assessment order, because it does not vary the assessed turnover or determine any fresh liability. On that basis, the original assessment remains the operative order for revision. The text also states that any revisional action against that assessment must be initiated within the prescribed four-year limitation period; where notice is issued after that period, the revision is time-barred and without jurisdiction. The revisional order was therefore set aside and the dealer's appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the order passed under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act discharging the notice could be treated as an assessment order capable of revision under section 10B; (ii) whether the Deputy Commissioner could validly revise the original assessment order after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation.

Issue (i): whether the order passed under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act discharging the notice could be treated as an assessment order capable of revision under section 10B.

Analysis: The order under section 21 did not vary the earlier assessment or determine any fresh taxable turnover. It merely recorded that no turnover had escaped assessment and discharged the notice. In view of the amended Explanation III to section 21, such an order does not supplant the earlier assessment order. The earlier assessment therefore continued to exist, and the Tribunal was in treating the discharge order as the operative assessment order for revision purposes.

Conclusion: The discharge order under section 21 was not the assessment order capable of sustaining the revisional action under section 10B.

Issue (ii): whether the Deputy Commissioner could validly revise the original assessment order after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation.

Analysis: The alleged error related to the assessment order which had treated the turnover of tyres and tubes as exempt. If that order was to be revised, action had to be taken within four years from its date. The notice under section 10B was issued after that period had expired, and the revisional authority had not initiated valid proceedings within time against the correct assessment order. The revisional action was therefore barred by limitation and without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The revision of the original assessment order was time-barred and invalid.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the impugned revisional order was set aside, and the dealer's appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a notice under section 21 is discharged without varying the existing assessment, the earlier assessment remains operative; any revision of that assessment must be initiated within the statutory period of limitation against the correct assessment order.

---