JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. N. Hawelia, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The Revenue is represented by the learned Counsel Mr. B. Choudhury. 2. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm in the business of, inter alia, sale of Jute, Supari etc. The firm is registered as a dealer under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the VAT Act”) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the CST Act”). The present case relates to the assessment year 2005 – 2006 when the dealer affected inter-state sales of Jute under the CST Act. The turnover return of the dealer was examined under Section 9(2) of the CST Act read with Section 34 of the VAT Act and having found the declared price of jute at Rs.4.55 a kg. to be on the lower side, the Assessing Authority assessed the jute price at Rs.5.10 a k.g. and on that basis, the tax was determined. The dealer accepted the assessment and paid the tax on the turnover stipulated by the Assessing Authority as assessed on 30.4.2007 (Annexure-I). 3. However the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Dhubri as the Revisional Authority issued show cause notice on 2.8.2007 for suo-motu Revision of the assessment order under Section 82 of the VAT Act by referring to the turnover declared by the dealer at Buxirhat Check-Gate of West Bengal while dispatching the goods in course of inter-state trade. But the first show cause notice of 2.8.2007 was cancelled and substituted by a 2nd notice, dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure-III). The Deputy Commissioner of Taxes in the 2nd notice referred to the declared turnover at the Assam Check-gate to the tune of Rs.3,21,70,791/- and accordingly asked the dealer to show-cause as to why the suo-motu Revision of Assessment should not be made, in respect of the earlier assessment order dated 30.4.2007. Opportunity of only 7 days’ time was granted for appearance of the Assessee and they could not appear and subsequently, the impugned order was passed on 29.2.2008 (Page-32) cancelling the original Assessment and direction was issued for fresh assessment on higher turnover of Rs.3,21,70,791/, for the Assessment Year 2005 – 2006. Then assessment order cum demand notice dated 17.3.2008 for Rs.17,43,272/-, towards tax and interest was served on the dealer. 4.1 Assailing the impugned orders, Ms. Then assessment order cum demand notice dated 17.3.2008 for Rs.17,43,272/-, towards tax and interest was served on the dealer. 4.1 Assailing the impugned orders, Ms. N. Hawelia, the learned Counsel submits that the suo-motu Revisional power could not have been exercised in the instant case as it is not disclosed as to how the assessment made by the Primary Authority, was erroneous. The Counsel submits that although assessment on higher turnover may be in Revenue’s interest, unless it is established on acceptable basis that the assessment by the Primary Authority made with reference to market price of jute, was erroneous, the exercise of suo-motu Revisional power for re-assessment, would not be justified in law. 4.2 Since only 7 days’ time was granted for appearance of the Assessee before the Revisional Authority, the learned Counsel submits that reasonable opportunity required to be provided under Section 82 of the VAT Act, was denied to the dealer. 5. To exercise the power of Revision under Section 82 of the VAT Act, the order to be revised must not only be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue but should also be erroneous and such inference must be drawn on the basis of relevant materials. Neither a wrong order will justify suo-motu Revision nor mere disagreement with the order of the original Authority, can lead to fresh determination of tax, on higher turnover. 6. For the assessment year 2005 – 2006, the Assessee in their return claimed the turnover of Rs.1,73,75,080/- by declaring the price of jute at Rs.4.55 per k.g. but this was not accepted by the Primary Authority by considering the said price to be on the lower side. Thus the market price of jute was determined by the Assessing Authority at Rs.5.10 a k.g. and on that basis, the higher taxable turnover was determined at Rs.1,94,57,816/- instead of 1,73,75,080/-. The assessment so made by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes was accepted by the dealer and the payable tax was deposited, by the assessee. 7. However suo-motu Revisional power under Section 82 of the VAT Act was invoked by referring to the jute price declared at the Assam Check-Gate in course of inter-state sale and on that basis, higher turnover was determined by the Revisional Authority under the impugned order of 29.2.2008. 7. However suo-motu Revisional power under Section 82 of the VAT Act was invoked by referring to the jute price declared at the Assam Check-Gate in course of inter-state sale and on that basis, higher turnover was determined by the Revisional Authority under the impugned order of 29.2.2008. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes does not indicate how the turnover finalized by the Assessing Authority was erroneous. More importantly, it is not said that wrong market price of jute (Rs.5.10 a k.g.) was considered by the Assessing Authority. Therefore, it is apparent that the Revisional Authority failed to justify how the assessment was erroneous. In the absence of such justification the exercise of Revisional power under Section 82 of the VAT Act without satisfying the mandatory requirement, cannot legally be sustained. 8. When the assessment was done on a higher turnover than what was declared by the dealer, the Primary Authority referred to the market price of jute. Hence unless it is established that the market price was not genuine, the Revisional Authority, only because he has a different view in the matter, cannot trench upon the power of the Primary Authority, to order for re-assessment of tax on the finalized turnover. 9. There can be a situation where the Revisional authority considers an assessment order to be incorrect. But when the assessment order is passed lawfully in due process and payable tax is determined, just because there is disagreement with the decision of the primary authority, the exercise of suo-motu power of revision is not permitted by law. 10. Moreover it is not a case of concealment nor the Revisional power is exercised on account of some manipulation of figures by the Assessee. In fact, the turnover in the return was supported by all requisite bills and invoices. Even then, a higher turnover was assessed by the Primary Authority with reference to the market price of the goods and this was accepted by the Assessee and demanded tax on the determined turnover was paid. Nevertheless without indicating how the assessed turnover was erroneous with cogent materials, the suo-motu Revisional power was invoked to order for re-determination of tax on a higher figure. The exercise of Revisional power under Section 82 of the VAT Act in such circumstances is found to be untenable and the same stands quashed. Nevertheless without indicating how the assessed turnover was erroneous with cogent materials, the suo-motu Revisional power was invoked to order for re-determination of tax on a higher figure. The exercise of Revisional power under Section 82 of the VAT Act in such circumstances is found to be untenable and the same stands quashed. Thus re-assessment of tax on 17.3.2008 (Annexure-V) on the basis of the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority on 29.2.2008, is interfered with. 11. With the above declaration, the case stands allowed in the manner indicated. No cost.