Revisional notice scope and goods classification rules shaped relief on commission turnover and electronic goods treatment.

Revisional action must stay within the scope of the show-cause notice; relief on commission turnover could not be withdrawn on a ground never proposed for notice, so that relief was restored. For tax classification, public call office machines were held not to be computers or computer peripherals; applying the earlier binding classification approach, they fell under the electronic goods entry in the schedule rather than the computer entry, and that classification was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional authority could set aside the exemption granted on commission turnover when that aspect was not proposed in the show-cause notice issued under the revisional power; (ii) Whether public call office machines were classifiable as computer or computer peripherals, or as electronic goods, for the purposes of tax under the schedule entries.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional authority could set aside the exemption granted on commission turnover when that aspect was not proposed in the show-cause notice issued under the revisional power.

Analysis: The revisional notice concerned only the nature of the goods sold and the treatment of the machines as computers or otherwise. The order, however, also disturbed the relief granted in respect of commission earned on sale, although that question was not put to notice or examined on the actual point arising for consideration. Action beyond the scope of the notice was treated as an error apparent on the record.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether public call office machines were classifiable as computer or computer peripherals, or as electronic goods, for the purposes of tax under the schedule entries.

Analysis: Applying the earlier binding classification ruling relied upon by the revisional authority, the machines were held not to be computers by themselves and not computer peripherals. On that reasoning, they fell within the electronic goods entry rather than the computer entry in the Second Schedule.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of restoring the relief relating to commission turnover, while the classification of the machines as electronic goods was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional action cannot extend beyond the scope of the show-cause notice, and a machine that is not a computer or computer peripheral is liable to be classified under the applicable electronic goods entry.

---