Reassessment notice under saving clause must follow new procedural machinery; defective notice can defeat jurisdiction.

The saving and transitional clause preserved liability under the repealed Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, but required recovery to proceed, so far as may be, under the procedural machinery of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. Because the reassessment notice period under the new Act was materially different and measured from service, a notice issued on the shorter basis applicable under the old Act did not comply with the governing procedure. The notice was treated as a statutory condition precedent to jurisdiction, so non-compliance with the required notice period rendered the reassessment incompetent and incapable of sustaining the assessment.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notice for escaped assessment relating to liability under the repealed Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 had to comply with the procedural machinery under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, including the duration of notice, and whether a defective notice deprived the Sales Tax Officer of jurisdiction to make the assessment.

Analysis: The saving and transitional provision in section 48(2)(iii) preserved tax liability incurred under the old Act but required the recovery machinery, so far as may be, to be worked under the new Act. The notice form and assessment machinery under the two Acts were materially different because the taxable incidents and the scope of levy differed. While the old Act required service of notice measured from the date of issue, the new Act required a longer period measured from the date of service. The notice issued for escaped assessment did not satisfy the longer duration required by the new Act, and that defect went to the root of the statutory precondition for reassessment. A notice under the relevant reassessment provision was treated as a condition precedent to jurisdiction, so a defective notice could not sustain the assessment.

Conclusion: The notice was defective and the reassessment lacked jurisdiction; the assessment order could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the reassessment notice did not validly comply with the statutory machinery applicable to recovery of tax under the repealed regime, and the assessment was rightly quashed on that ground.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a reassessment notice is a statutory condition precedent to jurisdiction, non-compliance with the required notice period renders the reassessment void, even when liability is preserved by a saving clause and recovery is to proceed under the new procedural machinery so far as may be.

---