Record-based revision of sales tax assessment requires concrete material; mere suspicion cannot justify reopening or remand.

Revision of a completed sales tax assessment could not be sustained on mere allegations that coconut oil was sold in small containers and used as hair oil. The Karnataka High Court held that a revisional order under section 21(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 requires material already on record showing the assessment to be erroneous or perverse; that standard was not met, so reopening was unjustified. The Court also refused remand, applying the principle of finality because the department had not established a record-based basis for further enquiry. The Tribunal was therefore correct in setting aside the revisional order and restoring the original assessment, while leaving other assessment periods open on their own facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional order classifying the assessee's coconut oil as hair oil and reopening the assessment for the relevant year was justified, and whether the Tribunal was right in restoring the original assessment and refusing remand.

Analysis: The revision under section 21(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 could be sustained only on the basis of material already on record showing that the assessment order was erroneous or perverse. The notice and revisional order proceeded largely on bald allegations that the product was used as hair oil, with reliance on the fact that the oil was also sold in small containers and sachets. The record did not disclose concrete supporting material sufficient to displace the original assessment for the year in question. The Court also declined to order a remand, holding that the general rule of finality applied and that, on the existing record, the department had not established a basis for reopening the completed assessment.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was correct in setting aside the revisional order and restoring the original assessment. The challenge to the Tribunal's order fails.

Final Conclusion: The departmental petition was dismissed, leaving the original assessment undisturbed for the relevant assessment year, while keeping other periods open for independent consideration on their own facts and materials.

Ratio Decidendi: Revision of an assessment cannot be sustained, and remand is not warranted, unless the record itself discloses material showing that the assessment is erroneous or perverse; mere allegations or suspicion are insufficient.

---