Reassessment notice defects do not vitiate proceedings absent prejudice where reasonable hearing opportunity is given.

A reassessment notice under rule 33 and section 19(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act is not invalid merely because it does not state the exact amount of escaped turnover or refers to irregular accounts. The statutory requirement is a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and rule 33 read with Form XVI governs the mode of notice. Procedural defects in the notice are not fatal unless they cause prejudice or deny a fair opportunity. A notice indicating that sales had escaped assessment was sufficient at initiation, and where the dealer appeared, sought inspection, and accessed the record, absence of real prejudice was not shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notice issued for reassessment under rule 33 and section 19(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 was invalid for not stating the exact amount of escaped turnover and for referring to irregular accounts as the basis of reassessment.

Analysis: Section 19(1) requires a reasonable opportunity of being heard before reassessment and does not itself make issuance of notice the foundation of jurisdiction. Rule 33 and Form XVI prescribe the mode of giving that opportunity, so defects in the notice are not fatal unless they cause prejudice or deny a fair opportunity. The notice here specified that sales had escaped assessment, which was sufficient indication of the escapement at the stage of initiation. The reference to irregular accounts was not extraneous merely because the earlier assessments were best judgment assessments, since non-maintenance of proper accounts could still lead to escaped turnover. The dealer had appeared, sought inspection, and obtained access to the record, so the proceedings were not shown to be vitiated by any real prejudice.

Conclusion: The notice was held not to be invalid merely because it did not state the exact amount of escaped turnover or because it referred to irregular accounts, and the reassessment proceedings were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires only a reasonable opportunity of being heard, a procedural defect in the reassessment notice does not invalidate the proceedings unless the dealer is shown to have been prejudiced and denied a fair opportunity.

---