Revisional power cannot reopen completed assessments on later material when escaped turnover must be pursued under the proper assessment provision.

A suo motu revisional notice under section 36(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 could not be used to reopen completed assessments merely because later materials suggested escaped turnover. The revisional power was confined to correcting an assessment that was jurisdictionally erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, not to revising a concluded assessment on a changed view of the merits. Where later information pointed to escaped turnover, the appropriate remedy lay under the escaped assessment provision before the assessing officer, not through revision. The challenge to the notice was treated as maintainable, since a party cannot be compelled to undergo an unlawful proceeding, and the notice was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suo motu revisional notice under section 36(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 could be issued to reopen completed assessments on the basis of subsequent materials and alleged escaped turnover.

Analysis: The completed assessments had been made after scrutiny of the records produced by the assessee, and no jurisdictional error was shown in those assessment orders. The revisional power under section 36(1) was confined to correction of an assessment that was erroneous in the jurisdictional sense and prejudicial to revenue, and could not be used merely because the authority later formed a different opinion on the merits or acquired additional material. If the later information indicated escaped turnover, the proper course lay under the statutory provision for escaped assessment, which vested power in the assessing officer and not in the revisional authority. The objection that the writ petition was premature was rejected because an authority cannot require submission to a proceeding that is not legally maintainable.

Conclusion: The revisional notice was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained; the challenge succeeded in favour of the assessee.

---