Revisional power under KGST Act stands on its own limitation and a remand order will not fail for lack of further hearing.

The Deputy Commissioner's suo motu revisional power under section 35 of the KGST Act is a distinct supervisory jurisdiction and is not curtailed by the limitation governing reassessment by the assessing officer under section 19(1). The separate limitation in section 35(2)(c) applies to revision, so the revisional action directing reassessment of escaped turnover was within time and valid. The natural justice challenge also failed because notice was attempted, and the revisional order only remanded the matter for fresh consideration and reassessment after giving the assessee an opportunity before the assessing officer; no final adverse finding was recorded in revision and no prejudice was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Deputy Commissioner could exercise suo motu revisional power under section 35 of the KGST Act to direct reassessment of escaped turnover notwithstanding the limitation applicable to reassessment by the assessing officer under section 19(1); (ii) whether the revisional order was vitiated for want of notice and opportunity before the Deputy Commissioner.

Issue (i): whether the Deputy Commissioner could exercise suo motu revisional power under section 35 of the KGST Act to direct reassessment of escaped turnover notwithstanding the limitation applicable to reassessment by the assessing officer under section 19(1).

Analysis: The revisional power under section 35 is a distinct supervisory power exercisable by the Deputy Commissioner when an order of a subordinate authority is prejudicial to revenue. The limitation under section 19(1) governs reassessment by the assessing officer with reference to the end of the relevant assessment year, whereas the limitation under section 35(2)(c) governs revision by the Deputy Commissioner with reference to the date of the order or proceeding sought to be revised. The two provisions operate in different fields and the shorter limitation for reassessment cannot be imported to curtail the revisional power, particularly when the statute itself provides a separate period for such revision.

Conclusion: The contention based on section 19(1) was rejected and the revisional action under section 35 was held to be within limitation and valid.

Issue (ii): whether the revisional order was vitiated for want of notice and opportunity before the Deputy Commissioner.

Analysis: Notice had been attempted at the business premises and served by affixture after the office was found closed. More importantly, the revisional order did not finally determine escapement of turnover but only remanded the matter for fresh examination and reassessment by the assessing officer after giving the assessee opportunity. Since the assessee could still contest escapement before the assessing officer and no final adverse finding was recorded in revision, the absence of a further hearing before the Deputy Commissioner did not cause prejudice warranting interference.

Conclusion: The challenge based on denial of natural justice failed.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order and the Tribunal's affirmation were sustained, and the revision was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: The Deputy Commissioner's suo motu revisional power to set aside a prejudicial assessment is governed by the independent limitation expressly provided for revision, and a procedural challenge based on notice will not succeed where the order is only a remand and no demonstrable prejudice is shown.

---