Revisional jurisdiction and escaped assessment: prior examination of turnover defeated reassessment on the facts.

The assessing authority had already issued notice, examined the books of account and reconciliation statement, and considered the turnover before completing assessment, so the disputed DEPB sale proceeds were not an omitted item outside the assessment process. On those facts, the Tribunal's view that the matter involved a mistake of law rather than escaped assessment was not perverse. Although revisional power cannot be used to invade the exclusive field of reassessment, the factual basis for invoking reassessment was absent, so the revisional jurisdiction was upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts of the case, the matter was one for reassessment of escaped turnover by the assessing authority under Section 31 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, or for revision by the revisional authority under Section 40 of that Act.

Analysis: The assessment order showed that the assessing authority had issued notice, examined the books of account and reconciliation statement, and considered the turnover in detail before accepting the export turnover and completing the assessment. The disputed DEPB sale proceeds were therefore not a case of non-consideration or an omitted item outside the assessment process; they had been before the assessing authority and were left untaxed because of the legal position then understood. On that footing, the Tribunal's finding that the assessment involved a mistake of law and not a case of escaped assessment was not perverse or unreasonable. The revisional power under Section 40 could not be invoked to trench upon the exclusive field of reassessment under Section 31, but that limitation did not help the appellant because the factual foundation for escaped assessment was absent.

Conclusion: The invocation of revisional jurisdiction was upheld and the appeal failed.

---