JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Vishnu Kesarwani, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party. 2. The present revision has been filed against the judgement & order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench - 2, Kanpur in Second Appeal No. 136 of 2016 for the assessment year 2009-10 arising out of the proceedings initiated under section 56(1) of the U.P. VAT Act, in which following questions of law have been framed:- "(i) Whether in view of the facts & circumstances, the Tribunal's act and decision holding the learned Joint Commissioner' Order legal was in accordance with Act. (iv) Whether section 56(1) of the Act permits the Assessing Officer to refer the case to the Commissioner or Joint Commissioner for assessment/re-assessment?" 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the proceedings initiated under section 56(1) of the VAT Act against the applicant are bad and without authority of law, as the assessing authority has sought permission for reassessment on various grounds under section 56(1) of the VAT Act. On issuance of notice, the dealer has specifically objected for initiation of proceedings under section 56(1) of the VAT Act. Copy of reply to the notice has been annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the revision. He submits that while passing the order dated 30.09.2016, the Joint Commissioner (Executive), Kanpur has specifically notices on the opening paragraph of its order (Annexure No. 7 to the revision), but failed to decide the core issue as to whether the permission can be granted to the assessing authority for reassessment under section 56(1) of the Act. On appeal before the Tribunal, again specific ground no. 11 was taken raising the issue of initiation of jurisdiction by the Commissioner granting permission to reassess the assessee. The Tribunal, while deciding the issue has referred to the judgement of this Court in M/s Samrat Carpet Vs. CTT reported in 1999 UPTC 1023 and held that the Commissioner had power to grant permission for reassessment, which is bad. He prays for allowing the revision. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the initiation of proceedings and the order passed by the authorities below. He submits that the Commissioner has a power under section 56(1) of the VAT Act to revise the order of the assessing authority and therefore, the order is justified. He prays for dismissal of the revision. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the initiation of proceedings and the order passed by the authorities below. He submits that the Commissioner has a power under section 56(1) of the VAT Act to revise the order of the assessing authority and therefore, the order is justified. He prays for dismissal of the revision. 5. The Court has perused the record. 6. Admittedly, the proceedings have been initiated under section 56(1) of the VAT Act seeking permission by the assessing authority to reassess the dealer on certain points. In pursuance thereof, notice was issued. In reply to the said notice, an objection was raised by the dealer objecting for initiation of proceedings and the competence of the authority for granting such permission under section 56(1) of the VAT Act. Copy of the reply has been annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the revision. Relevant portion is at page 76, which is quoted below:- ^^6- ;g fd Á'uxr uksfVl ds iSjk&2 esa dj fu/kkZjd vf/kdkjh }kjk dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k ,oa iqu% dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k dh vuqefr ekaxs tkus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 56¼1½ ls Li"V gS fd dfe'uj ;k dfe'uj }kjk Ákf/kd`r vf/kdkjh dks /kkjk 56¼1½ ds vUrxZr dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k ds iqujh{k.k dh 'kfDr dqN 'krksZ ds v/khu ÁkIr gSA Á'uxr uksfVl esa vafdr Hkk"kk ls Li"V gS fd dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k dk iqujh{k.k ekuuh; dfe'uj ;k mlds }kjk Ákf/kd`r vf/kdkjh }kjk ugha fd;k gS] cfYd dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 56¼2½ esa dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k dks la'kksf/kr@iqu% dj fu/kkZj.k djus dh vuqefr ekaxh xbZA vr% Á'uxr Ádj.k esa /kkjk 56¼2½ ds vUrxZr d`r dk;Zokgh vkjEHkr% voS/k ,oa 'kwU; gSA** 7. While granting permission under section 56(1) of the VAT Act, the Joint Commissioner (Executive), in its order dated 30.09.2016, has stated as under:- ^^O;kikjh dk o"kZ 2009&10 ÁkUrh; okn esa vflLVsUV dfe'uj] okf.kT;dj] [k.M&9] dkuiqj }kjk /kkjk&56 ds vUrxZr iqu% dj fu/kkZj.k dh dk;Zokgh ds lEcU/k esa vuqefr ekaxh x;h gSA** But has failed to discuss the issue raised by the dealer for granting permission for reassessment under section 56(1) of the VAT Act. 8. The record further reveals that before the Tribunal, again the dealer raised the competence of initiation of proceedings against it by raising specific ground no. 8. The record further reveals that before the Tribunal, again the dealer raised the competence of initiation of proceedings against it by raising specific ground no. 11, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition, which is quoted below:- ^^11- D;ksafd Á'uxr uksfVl@vkns'k esa dj fu/kkZjd vf/kdkjh }kjk dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k ,oa iqu% dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k dh vuqefr ekaxs tkus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 56¼1½ ls Li"V gS fd dfe'uj ;k dfe'uj }kjk Ákf/kd`r vf/kdkjh dks /kkjk 56¼1½ ds vUrxZr dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k ds iqujh{k.k dh 'kfDr dqN 'krksZ ds v/khu ÁkIr gSA Á'uxr uksfVl@vkns'k esa vafdr Hkk"kk ls Li"V gS fd dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k dk iqujh{k.k ekuuh; dfe'uj ;k mlds }kjk Ákf/kd`r vf/kdkjh }kjk gh fd;k x;k gS] fdUrq Á'uxr ekeysa esa dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh }kjk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 56¼2½ esa dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k dks la'kksf/kr@iqu% dj fu/kkZj.k djus dh vuqefr ekaxh xbZA vr% Á'uxr Ádj.k esa /kkjk 56¼1½ ds vUrxZr d`r dk;Zokgh vkjEHkr% voS/k ,oa 'kwU; gSA** 9. The Tribunal, while rejecting the contention of the dealer, relying upon the judgement of this Court in M/s Samrat Carpet Vs. CTT reported in 1999 UPTC 1023, had rejected the contention, which is quoted below:- ^^fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk fcUnq Hkh mBk;k x;k gS fd dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k dk iqujh{k.k dfe'uj ;k muds }kjk Ákf/kd`r vf/kdkjh }kjk gh fd;k tk ldrk gS] fdUrq Á'uxr vkns'k }kjk ekeys esa dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh dks dj fu/kkZj.k@iqu% dj fu/kkZj.k dh vuqefr nh x;h gS tks fof/kd ugha gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk dk ;g dFku Hkh lgh ugha gS D;ksafd /kkjk 56¼1½ esa TokbUV dfe'uj dks ;g vf/kdkj ÁkIr gS fd dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k dh oS/kkfudrk@vukSfpdrk ds laca/k esa lek/kku gks tkus ij ,slk vkns'k ikfjr dj ldrs gS] tSlk og fQj le>s vFkkZr ;fn o ;g mfpr ikrs gS fd okn ds rF;ksa ds ifjÁs{; esa dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh dks jktLo fgr esa dj fu/kkZj.k@iqu% dj fu/kkZj.k gsrq okn ds fuLrkj.k dh vuqefr fn;k tkuk vko';d gS tks og ,slk vkns'k ikfjr dj ldrs gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk ÁLrqr fu.kZ; eSllZ lezkV dkjisV bykgkckn cuke lhŒVhŒVhŒ ¼lqÁk½ ds ekeys esa /kkjk 10&ch ds varxZr fMIVh ¼dk;Zikyd½ ds vkns'k dh lgh Bgjk;k x;k] ftlesa muds }kjk dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k ds voS/kkfudrk@vukSf;R;rk ds lEcU/k esa lek/kku gks tkus ds i'pkr dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh dks iqu% dj fu/kkZj.k vkns'k ikfjr djus dh vuqefr nh x;h FkhA** 10. On perusal of the order passed by this Court in M/s Samrat Carpet (supra), which has been relied upon by the Tribunal, it reveals that the same is entirely on a different context, as the power is confined to the examination of the record as it was before the Assessing Officer; wherein this Court held that the Deputy Commissioner has exceeded in its jurisdiction in passing the order under section 10-B of the Act; whereas, in the case in hand, initiation of proceedings under section 56(1) of the VAT Act was under challenge for grant of permission for reassessment of dealer and not the power of the Commissioner as provided under section 56(1) of the VAT Act. The Tribunal as well as the Joint Commissioner (Executive) lost sight of this fact and granted permission to reassess the dealer. 11. For deciding the issue in hand, certain provisions, i.e., sections 29, 31 & 56 (1) of the U.P. VAT Act, will be necessary to be looked into. Section 56 of the VAT Act reads as under:- "56. Revision by the Commissioner - (1)The Commissioner or such other officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, as may be authorised in this behalf by the Commissioner may call for and examine the record relating to any order, passed by any officer subordinate to him, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order and may pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit. (2) No order under sub-section (1) affecting the interest of a party adversely shall be passed unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (3) No order under sub-section (1), shall be passed (a) to revise an order, which is or has been the subject matter of an appeal under section 55, or an order passed by the appellate authority under that section. (b) before the expiration of sixty days from the date of the order in question; (c) after the expiration of four-years from the date of the order in question. (b) before the expiration of sixty days from the date of the order in question; (c) after the expiration of four-years from the date of the order in question. Explanation- Where the appeal against any order is withdrawn or is dismissed for non-payment of fee payable under section 72 or for non-compliance of sub-section (3) of section 55, the order shall not be deemed to have been the subject-matter of an appeal under section 55; (4) No dealer or any other person, aggrieved by an order against which appeal lies under section 55, shall be entitled to present an application for review of such order under this section." 12. Bare perusal of section shows that the Commissioner is empowered to call for and examine the record relating to any order passed by any Officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality and propriety of such order. 13. Section 29 (1) of the VAT Act provides for reassessment, which is quoted below:- "29. Assessment of tax of turnover escaped from assessment: (1) If the assessing authority has reason to believe that the whole or any part of the turnover of a dealer, for any assessment year or part thereof, has escaped assessment to tax or has been under assessed or has been assessed to tax at a rate lower than that at which it is assessable under this Act, or any deductions or exemptions have been wrongly allowed in respect thereof, the assessing authority may, after issuing notice to the dealer and making such inquiry as it may consider necessary, assess or re-assess the dealer to tax according to law : Provided that the tax shall be charged at the rate at which it would have been charged had the turnover not escaped assessment or full assessment as the case may be. Explanation I:- Nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to prevent the assessing authority from making an assessment to the best of its judgement. Explanation II:- For the purpose of this section and of section 31, "assessing authority" means the officer or authority who passed the earlier assessment order, if any, and includes the officer or authority having jurisdiction for the time being to assess the dealer. Explanation II:- For the purpose of this section and of section 31, "assessing authority" means the officer or authority who passed the earlier assessment order, if any, and includes the officer or authority having jurisdiction for the time being to assess the dealer. Explanation III:- Notwithstanding the issuance of notice under this sub-section, where an order of assessment or re-assessment is in existence from before the issuance of such notice it shall continue to be effective as such, until varied by an order of assessment or re-assessment made under this section in pursuance of such notice. (2) ..... (3) ..... (4) ..... (5) ..... (6) .... (7) Where the Commissioner, on his own or on the basis of reasons recorded by the assessing authority, is satisfied that it is just and expedient so to do, authorises the assessing authority in that behalf, such assessment or re-assessment may be made within a period of eight years after expiry of assessment year to which such assessment or re-assessment relates notwithstanding such assessment or re-assessment may involve a change of opinion: Provided that it shall not be necessary for the Commissioner to hear the dealer before authorising the assessing authority." 14. Section 29(7) of the VAT Act empowers the Commissioner to grant permission for reassessment after expiry of the assessment year, but within 8 years of such assessment year, on his own or on the basis of reasons recorded by the assessing authority can extend the period of limitation and grant permission to the assessing authority of the respective dealer for reassessment. 15. 15. Section 31 of the VAT Act provides for rectification of mistake, which is also quoted below:- "Section 31: Rectification of mistakes :-(1) Any officer, authority, the Tribunal or the High Court may on its own motion or on the application of the dealer or any other interested person rectify any mistake apparent on the face of record, in any order passed by him under this Act, within three years from the date of the order sought to be rectified: Provided that where an application under this sub-section has been made within such period of three years, it may be disposed of even beyond such period: Provided further that no rectification which has the effect of enhancing the assessment, penalty, fees or other dues, shall be made unless reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given to the dealer or other person likely to be affected by such enhancement. (2) Where such rectification has the effect of enhancing the assessment, the assessing authority shall serve on the dealer a revised notice of demand in the prescribed form and therefrom all the provisions of this Act shall apply as if such notice had been served in the first instance" 16. Section 31 of the VAT Act empowers the officer, authority, the Tribunal or the High Court to rectify any mistake apparent on the face of record on its own omission or on the application of the dealer or any other interested person. 17. On perusal of sections 29, 29(7), 31 & 56 of the VAT Act, it is apparently clear that the Legislature, in its wisdom, has used/empowered the authority how to act as per the requirement of the time/in the interest of the Revenue/dealer. 18. 17. On perusal of sections 29, 29(7), 31 & 56 of the VAT Act, it is apparently clear that the Legislature, in its wisdom, has used/empowered the authority how to act as per the requirement of the time/in the interest of the Revenue/dealer. 18. Section 31 of the Act provides rectification of the order on an application of any interested person; whereas, section 29 of the Act empowers on the reason recorded by the assessing authority or the Commissioner on its own after being satisfied that it is just and expedient to do so to grant permission of the closed assessment for reassessment, where the turnover of a dealer for any assessment year or part thereof has escaped assessment to tax or has been under-assessed or has been assessed, but taxed at a lower rate than what at which it is assessable under the Act or any deduction or exemption have wrongly been allowed in respect thereof; meaning thereby, under sections 29 & 31 of the Act appropriate order can be passed by moving an application or seeking permission by the authority concerned. 19. However, section 56 of the Act does not provide any power to the Commissioner to grant permission of reassessment on the application of the assessing authority. There is no dispute that the Commissioner, on its own motion, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed by any Officer subordinate to him for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order and thereafter, passed such order in respect thereof as he deems fit. 20. The power of the Commissioner is not in question in the present revision as per section 56(1) of the Act. The issue involved in the present revision is only confined to the initiation of the reassessment proceedings by the assessing authority seeking permission of the Commissioner to reassess the revisionist under section 56(1) of the Act. If this procedure is permitted, then section 29 of the Act provides for reassessment will become redundant. Once there is a specific provision empowering authorities to act as per the procedure, the same must be adhered to. Any deviation from such procedure will cause havoc in the State. 21. The Division Bench of this Court in M/s A.K. Corporation & Another Vs. Once there is a specific provision empowering authorities to act as per the procedure, the same must be adhered to. Any deviation from such procedure will cause havoc in the State. 21. The Division Bench of this Court in M/s A.K. Corporation & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 1994 UPTC 75 has held that revisional authority has only empowered under section 10-B of the Act to satisfy itself about the propriety or legality of the order and not empowered the authority for initiating the proceeding for rectification or reassessment. It was further observed that if part of turnover of the assessee has escaped assessment or has wrongly been assessed or under-assessed, then the only course available to the authority under the Act was to issue notice for reassessment under section 21 of the Act, but the impugned action under the revisional jurisdiction cannot be permitted. 22. Section 56 of the VAT Act would reveal that the section has wide power, but seeking of permission by the assessing authority for making reassessment of the dealer is not conferred under the said provision. For reassessment, different provision has been prescribed under the VAT Act, i.e., section 29 and its sub-sections. It is not the case of the Department that section has wrongly been quoted, but specifically the Joint Commissioner (Executive), in the opening paragraph of the order under section 56(1) of the VAT Act while granting permission, has mentioned the said fact that the permission for reassessment is sought by the assessing authority and the permission has wrongly been granted by the Joint Commissioner (Executive). The Joint Commissioner (Executive) has exceeded in his jurisdiction, which has been endorsed by the Tribunal without looking into the provisions of the Act, which is very clear. In the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal should have allowed the dealer's appeal. 23. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by this Court, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. 24. The revision is allowed with cost of Rs.5,000/-, which shall be deposited within a month from today. An affidavit of compliance of deposit shall be filed within two months from today in the Registry of this Court, failing which the matter be listed in Chamber. 25. The questions of law are answered accordingly.