https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149947 Rule 33-A treated the Commercial Tax Officer as subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner for section 20 purposes, so revisional jurisdiction extended to orders passed by that officer. Prior representations or Board of Revenue clarification could not prevent reopening of assessment or inclusion of sales of badam, chironji and pista in turnover, because tax liability depended on the Act and the statutory determination of the first purchaser. A departmental instruction contrary to the statute could not create estoppel or restrict the assessing authority's statutory function. The revisional notice was therefore valid and the tax authorities could proceed under the Act. en-us Wed, 01 Apr 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 May 2013 16:11:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149947 Rule 33-A treated the Commercial Tax Officer as subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner for section 20 purposes, so revisional jurisdiction extended to orders passed by that officer. Prior representations or Board of Revenue clarification could not prevent reopening of assessment or inclusion of sales of badam, chironji and pista in turnover, because tax liability depended on the Act and the statutory determination of the first purchaser. A departmental instruction contrary to the statute could not create estoppel or restrict the assessing authority's statutory function. The revisional notice was therefore valid and the tax authorities could proceed under the Act. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 01 Apr 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149947