Reopening concluded sales tax assessments was impermissible where statutory conditions and revision procedure were not satisfied.

Completed sales tax assessments could not be reopened merely to direct a fresh assessment unless the statutory conditions for best-judgment assessment were met. Section 11(4) applied only where the dealer failed to furnish returns, comply with notice, or maintain regular accounts, and section 11(5) was inapplicable to a registered dealer. Although section 11-A was later inserted with retrospective effect, it did not authorise reopening outside the relevant period or otherwise in breach of its terms. The revisional power under section 22(5) was also unavailable because it concerned pending proceedings, and rule 57 required a revision application within the prescribed time. The departmental reopening was therefore unsupported by the Act and the rules.

---

---

Issues: Whether the completed sales tax assessments could be reopened and a fresh assessment directed under the unamended Act or under the subsequently inserted reassessment provision, and whether the revisional steps taken by the department were within the statute and the rules.

Analysis: The original assessments had been made after enquiry and were closed. The power to assess to the best of judgment under section 11(4) applied only where the statutory conditions such as failure to furnish returns, failure to comply with notice, or failure to maintain regular accounts existed, and section 11(5) was inapplicable to a registered dealer. The later inserted section 11-A, though given retrospective operation, did not justify reopening because the matter was beyond the relevant period and the reopening sought was not in accordance with that provision. The revisional power under section 22(5) was also unavailable because it contemplated revision of orders during the pendency of proceedings, and the procedure under rule 57 required a revision application within the prescribed time. On the facts found, the departmental move to reopen the concluded assessments was not supported by the Act or the rules.

Conclusion: The reopening and fresh assessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and contrary to the statute and the rules.

---