Revisional notice scope and sugar classification under sales tax entries limited the tax demand and upheld the goods' treatment as sugar.

A revisional authority cannot enlarge adverse tax revision beyond the goods specified in the Form 49 notice, because Form 45 is only a preliminary information-gathering step and the prescribed notice defines the scope of hearing and final order. On classification, patasa, harada, sakaria and alchidana were treated as sugar within entry 86 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, applying the adopted tariff-based definition and without requiring the dealer to have personally borne the additional excise duty. In any event, the goods also fell within entry 8 of Schedule IIA and did not fit the sweets and sweetmeats entry pressed by the revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional authority could levy tax on items beyond those mentioned in the Form 49 notice issued under the revisional provisions. (ii) Whether patasa, harada, sakaria and alchidana were covered by entry 86 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, and failing that, by entry 8 of Schedule IIA.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional authority could levy tax on items beyond those mentioned in the Form 49 notice issued under the revisional provisions.

Analysis: The notice under Form 45 was only a preliminary step for calling for accounts or information and had no bearing on the exercise of revisional power. The governing notice for adverse revision was the notice in Form 49. Since that notice referred only to patasa, the revisional authority could not validly extend the final order to other items without exceeding the scope of the notice and the opportunity of hearing contemplated by the Rules.

Conclusion: The levy beyond the items covered by the Form 49 notice was invalid, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether patasa, harada, sakaria and alchidana were covered by entry 86 of Schedule I to the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, and failing that, by entry 8 of Schedule IIA.

Analysis: Entry 86 applied to sugar as defined by the relevant excise tariff sub-headings, subject only to the condition that levy and collection of additional duty of excise were not exempted. The condition did not require the dealer himself to have borne the duty. On the statutory history, the sugar entries in Schedule I and Schedule IIA were intended to operate on the same broad definition, with entry 8 serving as the taxing counterpart where entry 86 did not apply. The goods in question were treated as sugar for these entries, and in any event they did not fall into the sweets and sweetmeats entry relied on by the revenue.

Conclusion: The goods were covered by entry 86, and alternatively by entry 8 if entry 86 did not apply; the revenue's classification was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed because the revisional order could not travel beyond the valid notice and the goods in question were not chargeable under the revenue's asserted entry.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute prescribes a specific notice for prejudicial revision, the revisional authority cannot go beyond that notice, and where a taxing entry adopts a defined meaning of goods by reference, the adopted meaning governs the classification unless the statutory condition for exemption fails.

---