Revisional power cannot replace reassessment where completed sales tax assessments are reopened on audit objection and no suppression is shown.

The Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 drew a clear distinction between reassessment of escaped turnover under section 18(1), rectification under section 37(1) and suo motu revision under section 36(1). Revisional power was confined to correcting an order that was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, and could not be used to reopen completed assessments or replace the assessing authority's reassessment function on a mere difference of opinion. An audit objection could not, by itself, supply the required independent satisfaction. On the stated facts, where there was no suppression of sales and a prior escaped-turnover notice had not been pursued, the revision was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner could invoke suo motu revisional power under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 to interfere with completed assessments on the ground of alleged escapement of turnover and audit objection.

Analysis: The statutory scheme separated three distinct powers: reassessment of escaped turnover under section 18(1), rectification under section 37(1), and revision of an order by the Commissioner under section 36(1). The power under section 18(1) vested in the assessing authority, while section 36(1) permitted revision only where an order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Revisional jurisdiction could not be used to usurp the reassessment function reserved for the assessing authority or to reopen matters on a mere difference of opinion. The record also showed that a notice of escaped turnover had earlier been issued and then not pursued, indicating that the assessing authority had accepted the explanation. The impugned revision was further influenced by an audit objection, which could not substitute for independent satisfaction by the revisional authority. On the facts, there was no suppression of sales and no jurisdictional basis for revision.

Conclusion: The suo motu revision was not maintainable and the assessee succeeded.

---