Reassessment limitation and procedural irregularities: timely reassessment after appellate order remains valid absent lack of jurisdiction.

A fresh reassessment made pursuant to an appellate order was held valid because the statutory period under section 29(8)(b) ran from communication of the appellate order to the assessing authority, and the reassessment fell within that time. Allegations of interpolation and procedural irregularities did not nullify the assessment because the assessing officer had inherent jurisdiction to act; such defects were treated as curable illegality or irregularity, not a jurisdictional nullity. The challenge on limitation failed, the assessments were not void, and the direction for fresh assessment was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a fresh assessment made pursuant to an appellate order was barred by limitation under section 29(8)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. (ii) Whether alleged interpolation and procedural irregularities in the assessment record rendered the assessment orders null and void.

Issue (i): Whether a fresh assessment made pursuant to an appellate order was barred by limitation under section 29(8)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Analysis: The provision required completion of the fresh assessment within two years from the date of communication of the appellate order to the assessing authority, with a further limited extension available to the Commissioner. On the record, the appellate order had been communicated to the assessing authority on 13 July 2000, so the permissible period expired on 12 July 2002. Even on the assumption that the reassessment order was actually signed later than its recorded date, it still fell within the statutory time-limit. The challenge founded on limitation therefore failed.

Conclusion: The reassessment was not barred by limitation and the objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether alleged interpolation and procedural irregularities in the assessment record rendered the assessment orders null and void.

Analysis: A distinction was drawn between an order passed without inherent jurisdiction, which is a nullity, and an order made by a competent authority in an irregular or wrongful manner, which remains an illegality capable of being cured in appropriate proceedings. The assessing officer had authority to make the assessment, and the alleged tampering or procedural impropriety did not go to the root of jurisdiction. At the most, the defects amounted to irregularities in the assessment proceedings, not a jurisdictional nullity.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were not null and void on account of the alleged irregularities.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's direction for fresh assessment was upheld, and the appeals failed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment made within the statutory period computed from communication of the appellate order is valid, and procedural irregularities in assessment proceedings do not render an otherwise competent assessment a nullity unless the authority lacked inherent jurisdiction.

---