Mismatch-based assessment revisions require prescribed procedure, while penalty must form part of the assessment order.

Assessment revision based on web reports or record verification must follow the prescribed departmental mismatch procedure when purchase omission is alleged, rather than being sustained on an informal verification route. Penalty under section 27 is required to be part of the assessment order and cannot be imposed by a separate order. On purchase tax, the discussion treats a works contractor engaged in civil construction as not attracting the additional levy on the goods used in construction in the circumstances noted. The document also indicates that failure to follow the governing procedure can vitiate the proceeding and require reconsideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision of assessment and levy of penalty based on web report or record verification, without following the prescribed procedure, could be sustained, and whether purchase tax could be levied on a works contractor engaged in civil construction.

Analysis: The assessment revision was founded on mismatch and verification of records, and not solely on a pure change of opinion. However, where the authority proceeds on purchase omission disclosed by web report, the procedure prescribed by the departmental circular governing mismatch cases has to be followed. The order also proceeded on a course inconsistent with the settled position that penalty under section 27 must form part of the assessment order and cannot be imposed by a separate order. As regards the levy of purchase tax, the activity of the works contractor was treated as falling within the line of reasoning that such goods use in construction does not attract an additional levy in the circumstances noted by the Court.

Conclusion: The impugned proceedings were set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---