Reassessment approval needs recorded reasons and hearing; jurisdictional reopening cannot stand on unreasoned sanction or mere change of opinion.

Reassessment under an extended limitation period requires lawful approval supported by recorded reasons and a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the affected dealer; a non-speaking sanction order is invalid and the consequent notice cannot survive. A writ challenge is maintainable where the objection goes to jurisdiction and the legality of the reopening itself, despite an alternative remedy. Reopening cannot rest on a mere change of opinion, and the pre-amendment definitions of dealer, importer and manufacturer did not justify taxing the turnover of broken glass on the facts stated; the amended definition of manufacturer was not retrospective for the year in issue.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a writ petition was maintainable against a show cause notice and the sanction for reassessment when the challenge was to the very jurisdiction to reopen the assessment; (ii) whether the Additional Commissioner could grant approval for reassessment under the extended period without recording reasons and without affording the dealer an opportunity of hearing; (iii) whether the reassessment proceedings could be sustained on the basis of change of opinion and the applicability of the statutory definitions of dealer, importer and manufacturer to the turnover of broken glass.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition was maintainable against a show cause notice and the sanction for reassessment when the challenge was to the very jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar where the challenge goes to the existence of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or proceedings that are ex facie without authority of law. A notice under the reassessment provision is jurisdictional in character, and the assessee is entitled to challenge the very foundation of the reopening when the statutory conditions precedent are alleged to be absent. The order granting permission to reopen also could not be treated as a mere routine step immune from judicial review, because it affected civil consequences and was not supported by any stated reasons.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the objection based on alternative remedy failed, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Additional Commissioner could grant approval for reassessment under the extended period without recording reasons and without affording the dealer an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The proviso enabling reassessment beyond the ordinary limitation required the Commissioner or Additional Commissioner to be satisfied that it was just and expedient to authorise reopening. That satisfaction had to be founded on recorded reasons, and the affected dealer had to be given an opportunity to meet those reasons, because the approval order entailed serious civil consequences. A non-speaking order merely reproducing the statutory language was insufficient. Since no reasons were recorded and no hearing was afforded, the sanction order lacked legal validity and the subsequent notice founded upon it could not stand.

Conclusion: The approval order and the consequential reassessment notice were invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the reassessment proceedings could be sustained on the basis of change of opinion and the applicability of the statutory definitions of dealer, importer and manufacturer to the turnover of broken glass.

Analysis: The original assessment had already examined the turnover of broken glass and had not fastened tax liability on the assessee. Reopening could not be justified as a mere reappraisal of the same material unless there was a legally sustainable basis for belief that turnover had escaped assessment. On the facts, the assessee was dealing through commission agency and the relevant pre-amendment statutory definitions did not justify treating it as a manufacturer or importer on the disclosed turnover. The amended definition of manufacturer was not retrospective for the assessment year in question. The reliance on the earlier precedent concerning discarded goods also did not cure the defect in the sanction process, and change of opinion by itself could not validate an otherwise defective reopening.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were not sustainable on the facts and law applied, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reopening mechanism failed for want of recorded reasons and lawful approval, and the consequential reassessment steps were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where reassessment is sought under an extended limitation provision, the approving authority must record reasons and afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and a jurisdictional reopening founded on an unreasoned approval cannot be sustained.

---