Revisional power cannot replace reassessment where escaped turnover is alleged on the same facts and the writ is entertained.

The availability of a statutory appeal does not create an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction; the exhaustion rule remains discretionary, and the Court may entertain the petition where it has remained pending for a long period and raises a pure question of law. Revisional power under section 36 is confined to jurisdictional error prejudicial to the Revenue and cannot be used to correct a mere wrong assessment or a dispute over turnover. Where the grievance is escaped turnover or concealment on the same facts, the proper course is reassessment under section 18, not revision. The suo motu revisional order was therefore unsustainable and was quashed, leaving the assessment undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of a statutory appeal; (ii) Whether the suo motu revisional order cancelling the assessment could be sustained where the alleged escapement of turnover was a matter for reopening under the reassessment provision.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the availability of a statutory appeal.

Analysis: The existence of an appellate remedy does not create an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction. The rule requiring exhaustion of alternate remedies is one of discretion and convenience, to be applied on the facts of each case. Where the petition has remained pending for a long period and the controversy raises a pure question of law, the Court may decide the matter on merits instead of relegating the party to the appellate forum.

Conclusion: The writ petition was properly entertained notwithstanding the available statutory appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the suo motu revisional order cancelling the assessment could be sustained where the alleged escapement of turnover was a matter for reopening under the reassessment provision.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 36 is confined to correcting orders that are erroneous in the jurisdictional sense and prejudicial to the Revenue. A mere wrong assessment, or a dispute about the quantum of tax, does not by itself amount to such an error. Where the case of the Revenue is that turnover escaped assessment because of concealment, the proper course is reassessment under section 18. Having initially proceeded under the reopening provision and then abandoned that course, the authority could not invoke revision on the same facts, because that would allow the revisional authority to trench upon the distinct power vested in the primary assessing authority.

Conclusion: The suo motu revisional order was unsustainable and was liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revisional order was set aside, and the assessment was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction confined to jurisdictional error cannot be used as a substitute for reassessment where the grievance is only escaped turnover or concealment on the same facts.

---