Extended reassessment limitation requires concealment or nondisclosure; notices fail where no supporting material exists.

Reassessment beyond the ordinary limitation period required jurisdictional facts showing concealment, omission, or failure to disclose turnover particulars. The record contained no material to support such a finding, and the tax authority already possessed the relevant form disclosing the turnover. The absence of sustained penalty on concealment further confirmed that the foundation for invoking the extended limitation was missing. On that basis, reopening beyond six years could not be maintained, and the reassessment notices were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings under section 18(1)(a) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 could be sustained beyond six years in the absence of material showing concealment, omission, or failure to disclose particulars of turnover by the assessee.

Analysis: Reopening of assessment under the statutory scheme depended on the existence of the specified jurisdictional facts. The record did not disclose any material showing that the assessee had suppressed or failed to furnish particulars required by law, and the authority was already in possession of the relevant form containing the turnover particulars. The fact that penalty proceedings were not sustained on concealment also reinforced the absence of the foundation necessary for invoking the longer period of limitation. In the absence of material to justify action under the extended limitation, the department could not sustain reopening beyond six years.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices could not be upheld under section 18(1)(a) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the challenge succeeded in favour of the assessee.

---