Best judgment assessment requires a valid notice from the competent assessing authority; later appointment cannot cure the defect.

A valid notice under section 14(3)(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act was a jurisdictional prerequisite to a best judgment assessment under section 14(4). A notice issued before the officer became the assessing authority was not the opinion of a competent authority and could not support the assessment. The officer's later appointment did not retrospectively validate the earlier notices or cure the defect. Best judgment assessments founded on such unauthorized notices were therefore invalid and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a best judgment assessment could be sustained when the notice under section 14(3)(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act was issued by a person who was not then the assessing authority.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required a valid notice under section 14(3)(a) before any best judgment assessment could be made under section 14(4), and the dealer's obligation to comply arose only from a lawful notice issued by the competent assessing authority. Since the notices were issued before the officer had been appointed as Commercial Tax Officer, the opinion formed by him under section 14(3)(a) was not an opinion of the assessing authority and could not validly support the notice. The subsequent appointment of that officer did not cure the defect or retrospectively confer authority to treat the earlier notices as valid for the purpose of section 14(4).

Conclusion: The best judgment assessments were invalid and liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A best judgment assessment under section 14(4) can be made only after a valid notice under section 14(3)(a) is issued by the competent assessing authority, and a notice issued without authority is a jurisdictional nullity not cured by a later appointment.

---