Broad reassessment power permits reopening of wrongly assessed turnover; alternative remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction.

Rule 5(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules was read broadly to permit reassessment where turnover had earlier been brought to tax under an incorrect legal view. The earlier assessment treated the sales as local sales, but the later authority held that they occasioned inter-State movement and were taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act, so reopening was within jurisdiction and valid. The availability of an appellate remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the challenge raised jurisdictional and vires questions that the ordinary appeal process could not adequately address. The reassessments were therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessing authority could reassess turnover earlier assessed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act on the footing that it had escaped assessment under rule 5(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules. (ii) Whether the availability of an appellate remedy barred the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the assessing authority could reassess turnover earlier assessed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act on the footing that it had escaped assessment under rule 5(7) of the Central Sales Tax (Madras) Rules.

Analysis: The expression "if, for any reason" in rule 5(7) was treated as of wide import. The earlier assessment had proceeded on a mistaken view that the turnover was taxable as local sales, whereas the later authority concluded that the sales occasioned movement of goods from one State to another and were taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act. The rule was read with the statutory powers recognised in section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and section 16(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Authorities on escaped assessment under the income-tax law were distinguished because rule 5(7) was broader than section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Conclusion: The reassessment was within jurisdiction and valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of an appellate remedy barred the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The challenge raised questions of jurisdiction and the vires of the rule, which the ordinary appellate hierarchy could not adequately decide in the same manner. The existence of an alternative remedy did not, on these facts, prevent recourse to writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the reassessment power and declined to interfere, leaving the impugned reassessments undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment provision couched in wide terms such as "for any reason" authorises reopening of an earlier assessment where turnover was wrongly assessed under an incorrect legal view, and such power is not confined to cases of mere inadvertence or omission.

---