Reassessment notice defects do not vitiate proceedings absent prejudice; de novo remand may follow natural justice breach.

Defective or irregular service of notice in reassessment proceedings does not, by itself, vitiate the proceedings where the statute requires only a reasonable opportunity of being heard and no prejudice is shown. The decisive test is whether the assessee suffered prejudice; if service was impracticable because of the assessee's conduct, or the irregularity caused no prejudice, reassessment remains valid. The text also notes that, where breach of natural justice is established, an appellate authority may in appropriate cases set aside the order and direct a de novo decision. On that basis, the direction for fresh reassessment was upheld and the contrary view was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether defective or irregular service of notice in reassessment proceedings vitiated the proceedings, and whether the appellate court was justified in directing de novo assessment by remand.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 19(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 required only a reasonable opportunity of being heard before reassessment. Rule 63 regulated the mode of service, but non-issue of notice, mistake in service, or defective service did not by itself destroy jurisdiction if reasonable opportunity had otherwise been afforded. The decisive question was whether prejudice had been caused. If the assessee's conduct made service impracticable, or if the irregularity did not cause prejudice, the reassessment would not be invalid. The Court also held that where breach of natural justice is alleged, an appellate authority may, in appropriate cases, set aside the order and direct fresh decision de novo.

Conclusion: The direction for de novo reassessment was and the Division Bench was not justified in setting it aside; the appeal succeeded in favour of the Revenue.

---