https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150991 Retrospective insertion of section 6(1A) of the Central Sales Tax Act justified revisional interference with an exemption earlier granted by the appellate authority, because the turnover had not escaped assessment through inadvertence, omission, or concealment and so did not attract reassessment under section 14. The Deputy Commissioner's action was therefore a valid exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. For limitation under section 20(3), the statute required exercise of revisional power within four years from service of the original assessment order, not service of the revisional order; issuance of notice and passing of the revisional order within time was sufficient. en-us Fri, 20 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 May 2013 11:48:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150991 Retrospective insertion of section 6(1A) of the Central Sales Tax Act justified revisional interference with an exemption earlier granted by the appellate authority, because the turnover had not escaped assessment through inadvertence, omission, or concealment and so did not attract reassessment under section 14. The Deputy Commissioner's action was therefore a valid exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 20(2) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. For limitation under section 20(3), the statute required exercise of revisional power within four years from service of the original assessment order, not service of the revisional order; issuance of notice and passing of the revisional order within time was sufficient. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 20 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150991