Suo motu revisional power must rest on enquiry and reasoned findings, not mere suspicion, before reassessment can stand.

Suo motu revisional power under section 36(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 must be based on a reasoned finding, after enquiry, that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. Where the revisional authority acts on mere suspicion, without properly examining the dealer's documents or recording a jurisdictional defect, the revision and consequent reassessment cannot be sustained. The note emphasises that factual issues such as the corrected broker's certificate, ownership, and alleged tax evasion require proper determination before revisional interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suo motu revision under section 36(1) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 and the consequent reassessment could be sustained when the revisional authority acted without proper enquiry and on mere suspicion.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 36(1) can be exercised only where the underlying assessment is shown to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the State. On the facts, the revisional authority proceeded on suspicion without making a proper enquiry into the dealer's documents and without recording a finding that the assessment suffered from any jurisdictional defect or that the alleged sales were outside the petitioner's purchase chain. Such exercise of power was not justified, particularly when the matter required consideration of the corrected broker's certificate and a factual determination on ownership and alleged tax evasion.

Conclusion: The suo motu revision and the reassessment order could not be sustained as passed.

Ratio Decidendi: Suo motu revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised on mere suspicion and must rest on a reasoned finding, after enquiry, that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

---