Escaped assessment limitation and exemption burden: amended time limit applied, and no denial of effective opportunity was found.

An amendment enlarging the limitation period for escaped assessment applies to pending matters where the earlier period had not already expired, because limitation is procedural and no vested right accrues to the shorter period. The reassessment was therefore within time. On the opportunity-to-show-cause issue, the Court held that no real and effective denial occurred because the disputed turnover was admitted in substance, the records supporting the exemption claim were available, and the assessee had more than one chance to respond but did not substantiate entitlement to exemption. The reassessment was sustained on both grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment was invalid for denial of a real and effective opportunity to show cause against inclusion of the disputed turnover; (ii) whether the reassessment was barred by limitation under the applicable rule.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment was invalid for denial of a real and effective opportunity to show cause against inclusion of the disputed turnover.

Analysis: The disputed turnover was admitted in substance, while the claim to exemption depended on the petitioner proving that the chillies sold had been produced on lands in which he had an interest. The records relevant to that claim were available, and the petitioner did not substantiate the exemption with the material in his possession or seek a proper inspection of the original records. Though copies of certain documents were not supplied, the Court found that the petitioner had more than one opportunity to answer the notice and that the refusal did not amount to denial of a real and effective opportunity.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the reassessment was not held invalid on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment was barred by limitation under the applicable rule.

Analysis: The escaped turnover was assessed within three years from the close of the assessment year, after the rule governing escaped assessments had been amended to enlarge the limitation period. The Court treated limitation as procedural and held that, since the earlier shorter period had not already barred the action when the amendment came into force, the amended period governed the case. The claim that the assessee had acquired a vested right to the shorter limitation was rejected.

Conclusion: The reassessment was held to be within time and not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment failed on both grounds, and the impugned assessment was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment enlarging the period of limitation for escaped assessment applies to pending cases so long as the earlier period had not already expired, and a claimant to tax exemption bears the burden of proving entitlement to it.

---