Revisional scrutiny and reassessment under the U.P. Trade Tax Act operate in different fields; fresh hearing required before reconsideration.

Proceedings under section 10-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act were not barred merely because reassessment proceedings under section 21 had been initiated, since revision of an existing assessment order on the record already available operates in a different field from escaped-turnover reassessment. The revisional authority could therefore examine the legality or propriety of the original assessment despite a pending section 21 notice. However, because the dealer had not yet replied to the objections raised in the revisional notice, the matter required a fresh hearing and reconsideration after giving an opportunity to explain those objections. The Tribunal's view that the revisional action was automatically invalid was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings under section 10-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 were barred merely because proceedings under section 21 of the Act had been initiated, and whether the matter required fresh consideration after giving the dealer an opportunity to explain the objections.

Analysis: Section 21 operates where turnover is believed to have escaped assessment, while section 10-B empowers revision of an existing order on the question of legality or propriety on the record available at the time of assessment. The existence of a section 21 notice does not by itself disable revision under section 10-B if the revisional authority is examining the original assessment order on the material already on record. The Tribunal erred in treating the section 21 proceedings as conclusive and in holding that the revisional notice could not be acted upon. At the same time, the dealer had not offered a reply to the objections raised in the revisional notice, so the matter required an opportunity of hearing and fresh examination by the revisional authority.

Conclusion: The initiation of proceedings under section 10-B was not illegal merely because section 21 proceedings had been initiated, and the Tribunal's order setting aside the revisional action was unsustainable. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration by the revisional authority after giving the dealer an opportunity to explain the objections.

Ratio Decidendi: Revision under section 10-B and reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 operate in different fields, and the mere initiation of reassessment proceedings does not bar revisional scrutiny of the original assessment order on the existing record.

---