Delegated reassessment power includes statutory satisfaction; escaped assessment is judged against the dealer's own assessment record.

A duly delegated reassessment power under section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 carried the authority's satisfaction about escapement, because that satisfaction was an integral limitation on the power rather than a separate personal function. Escaped assessment was to be tested against the dealer's own assessment for the relevant year, not by whether the same turnover had been assessed in another concern's name. The reassessment notice was not invalid merely because alternative words were left unscored, as the assessee understood the case to meet and replied. On these grounds, the reassessment notice and order were upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assistant Commissioner could validly issue the reassessment notice and make the reassessment under section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, when the Commissioner's satisfaction was delegated; whether the turnover was one that had escaped assessment notwithstanding that it had been assessed in the name of another concern; and whether the notice was invalid for want of specificity.

Analysis: The statutory scheme placed primary assessment powers in the Commissioner but expressly permitted delegation of powers and duties under section 30, subject to the Act and the prescribed restrictions. On the language of section 19, the requirement that the authority be satisfied about escapement was not a separate, personal duty severable from the reassessment power; it was a limitation inherent in the exercise of that power. A valid delegation of the power to reassess therefore carried with it the authority to reach the necessary satisfaction. The Court also held that escaped assessment is to be understood with reference to the assessment of the particular dealer for the relevant year, and not by the mere fact that the same turnover may have been assessed in someone else's name. The notice was not invalid merely because alternative words were left unscored, since the assessee clearly understood the case to meet and submitted a reply.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice and the reassessment order were within jurisdiction and were not vitiated by lack of delegation, by the plea that there was no escaped assessment, or by alleged defect in the notice.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment failed, and the writ petition was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes reassessment contingent on the authority's satisfaction about escapement and also permits delegation of the reassessment power, the satisfaction requirement is integral to that power and may be exercised by the duly delegated authority; escaped assessment is judged with reference to the dealer's own assessment for the relevant year.

---