Reassessment must follow the specific statutory route, and supervisory power cannot be used to authorize reopening of turnover

A reassessment under the U.P. VAT Act must follow the specific statutory route in section 29, including section 29(7) for escaped turnover, rather than being initiated through permission under section 56(1). Section 56(1) is confined to the Commissioner's supervisory examination of subordinate orders for legality or propriety, while section 31 concerns rectification of mistakes. Permission granted under section 56(1) for reassessment was therefore outside the scope of that provision, and the Tribunal erred in treating it as valid. The stated legal principle is that where the statute prescribes a specific mechanism for reassessment, that mechanism alone must be used.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessing authority could initiate reassessment proceedings by seeking permission under section 56(1) of the U.P. VAT Act and whether the Commissioner or Joint Commissioner had power under that provision to grant such permission, or whether reassessment had to proceed under section 29 of the Act.

Analysis: Section 56(1) empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of subordinate orders for determining legality or propriety, and section 31 deals with rectification of mistakes. Reassessment, including reassessment beyond the normal period, is specifically governed by section 29 and section 29(7), which prescribe the statutory route and conditions for reopening escaped turnover. The order granting permission for reassessment under section 56(1) was therefore outside the scope of that provision, and the Tribunal erred in endorsing it without applying the correct statutory framework.

Conclusion: The initiation of reassessment proceedings and the grant of permission under section 56(1) were jurisdiction and invalid; the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides a specific mechanism for reassessment, that mechanism must be followed and a revisional or supervisory provision cannot be used to authorize reassessment proceedings.

---