Revisional jurisdiction over escaped turnover upheld where the material was already on record and no fresh evidence was used.

Revisional jurisdiction under Section 10-B of the Sales Tax Act may be used to correct an illegal or improper assessment where the relevant turnover was already on the assessment record, even if that turnover could also fall within escaped-assessment provisions under Section 21. Section 21 remains the specific reassessment mechanism for escaped or under-assessed turnover, but its existence does not bar revision in these circumstances. The revisional power is supervisory in nature and cannot be founded on fresh material discovered after assessment. On the facts, the turnover had been overlooked from the existing file, so the revisional authority acted within jurisdiction and the Tribunal's contrary view was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional authority under Section 10-B of the Sales Tax Act could revise an assessment on the basis of turnover that had escaped assessment, and whether the existence of a remedy under Section 21 of the Sales Tax Act excluded or limited such revisional power.

Analysis: Section 21 is the specific provision for reassessment where turnover has escaped assessment, under-assessment, lower-rate assessment, or wrongful allowance of deductions or exemptions, and it must be invoked by the assessing authority within the prescribed limitation. Section 10-B, on the other hand, confers supervisory revisional power on the Commissioner or authorised Deputy Commissioner to examine the legality or propriety of an order passed by a subordinate authority and to pass such order as considered fit. The revisional power may overlap with Section 21, but it is confined to material already existing on the assessment record and cannot be used on fresh material discovered after the assessment. On the facts, the turnover in question was already reflected in the assessment file and was overlooked at the time of assessment, so the revisional authority acted within jurisdiction in correcting the illegality in the assessment order.

Conclusion: The revisional authority could validly invoke Section 10-B on the basis of material already on record, and the availability of Section 21 did not bar revision in these circumstances.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's view was unsustainable, and the revisional order restoring the matter for fresh assessment was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction may be exercised to correct an illegal or improper assessment on the basis of material already on the record, even if the turnover also answers the description of escaped assessment, but it cannot be founded on fresh material discovered after the assessment order.

---