Recovery of unpaid sales tax may proceed without reopening assessment where assessed liability remains unchanged.

A notice issued under section 22(4)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 for tax shown as paid in the return but later found not to have been deposited is a recovery measure and not a reopening of assessment. The statutory scheme treats assessment and recovery as distinct stages, and the amount reflected in the challan is not part of the assessed turnover or assessed tax. Because the assessed liability remained unchanged, the notice did not amount to rectification under section 45, which applies only where tax liability is enhanced or a refund is reduced. The recovery notices were therefore held valid and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether notices issued under section 22(4)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 for recovery of the short-paid amount could be issued after assessment without reopening or modifying the assessment order; (ii) whether such notices amounted to rectification of assessment requiring compliance with section 45 of the Act.

Issue (i): whether notices issued under section 22(4)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 for recovery of the short-paid amount could be issued after assessment without reopening or modifying the assessment order.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated return filing, assessment, and recovery as distinct stages. The assessment under section 18 depended on taxable turnover and permissible deductions, not on the assessee's own statement of payment in the challan. The amount shown as paid in the challan was not an integral part of the assessment order. Where verification later showed that the tax shown as paid had in fact not been deposited, the case fell within section 22(4)(a), which authorised recovery of tax due where the return had been furnished without full payment of tax. Such a notice did not alter the assessed liability or amount of tax determined on assessment.

Conclusion: The notices under section 22(4)(a) were valid and could be issued without reopening the assessment.

Issue (ii): whether such notices amounted to rectification of assessment requiring compliance with section 45 of the Act.

Analysis: The notices were directed only to recovery of tax found unpaid, not to enhancement of assessed tax or reduction of refund. Section 45 required prior notice only when rectification would enhance tax liability or reduce refund. Since the assessed tax remained unchanged and the notices only sought recovery of the unpaid portion, the rectification provision was not attracted.

Conclusion: The impugned notices did not amount to rectification requiring compliance with section 45.

Final Conclusion: The recovery notices were held to be within jurisdiction and the petitions challenging them were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice for recovery of tax shown as paid in the return but later found not to have been actually deposited is a recovery measure under the sales tax statute and does not reopen, modify, or rectify the assessment so long as the assessed turnover and assessed tax remain unchanged.

---