Substance over label controls assessment orders: later exemption order could not reopen the original turnover assessment.

The legal character of a subsequent order depends on its substance, not on the label used. Here, the later order dealt only with exemption granted on newly produced Form F declarations and did not reopen or revise the original assessment for the disputed turnover. As no appeal had been filed against the original assessment, the assessee could not challenge that turnover through an appeal against the later exemption order. The merger principle did not apply because the later order was not a true revisional or reassessment order in relation to the disputed turnover.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order dated 31 May 2000 was a revised assessment order, so as to permit an appeal against it in respect of the turnover of Rs. 88,25,405, or whether it was only an order granting exemption on production of declaration forms, leaving the original assessment intact.

Analysis: The order dated 31 May 2000 was passed after the original assessment and dealt only with the exemption claimed on the basis of Form F declarations produced later for the turnover of Rs. 3,72,35,714. The Court held that the mere use of the words "revised" or "revised assessment" did not determine the legal character of the order. On the substance, the subsequent order only modified the assessment to the extent of the exemption granted on newly produced documents and did not reopen or revise the original assessment relating to the disputed turnover of Rs. 88,25,405. Since no appeal had been filed against the original assessment, the challenge to that turnover could not be entertained in an appeal against the later order. The Court also held that the merger principle did not assist the petitioner because there was no true revisional or reassessment order in respect of the disputed turnover.

Conclusion: The subsequent order was not a revisional or reassessment order in relation to the disputed turnover, and the appeal against it could not be used to challenge the original assessment. The finding of the appellate authorities was upheld.

---