Revisional jurisdiction requires both error and revenue prejudice; mere low profit margin cannot justify reopening without factual basis.

Revisional power under Section 36 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 requires both an erroneous assessment and prejudice to revenue; it cannot be used as a substitute for appellate reappraisal or a mere change of opinion. A low profit margin, by itself, was insufficient to reopen the assessment where the assessing authority had considered the material on record and the dealer had offered a plausible explanation supported by price lists for regional pricing differences. In the absence of a factual basis for suppression of sales or tax evasion, and because the dealer's detailed explanation was not properly considered, the revisional orders were unsustainable and the assessee's challenge succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional jurisdiction under Section 36 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 could be exercised to reopen the assessment orders on the grounds of alleged low profit margin and alleged suppression of sales, and whether the impugned revisional orders were sustainable when the dealer's explanation and material were not properly considered.

Analysis: The expression "erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue" was held to require the coexistence of both conditions. The revisional power is supervisory and cannot be used as a substitute for appellate reappraisal or for mere change of opinion. An assessment cannot be branded erroneous only because the Commissioner prefers a different estimate or considers the profit margin low, particularly when the assessing authority has applied its mind to the material on record. The dealer's reply and price lists showed a plausible business explanation for the differential pricing in the North Eastern region, and there was no factual basis showing suppression of sales or manipulation intended to evade tax. The order also suffered from legal infirmity because the detailed explanation was not properly considered before invoking revision.

Conclusion: The revisional jurisdiction was not validly invoked, and the impugned orders were unsustainable; the challenge succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Suo motu revision can be exercised only when the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue, and it cannot be invoked on a mere difference of opinion or without a factual and legal basis showing that lawful tax has escaped assessment.

---