Reassessment limitation under sales tax law cannot be extended by a redundant second notice repeating the same facts.

A notice under section 21(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is a condition precedent to reassessment of escaped turnover, and the proviso to section 21(2) extends limitation only from service of the notice that validly initiates those proceedings. Where reassessment had already begun on an earlier timely notice, a later notice repeating the same facts could not be treated as the operative notice for extending time. On that reasoning, the second notice did not revive or extend limitation, and an assessment completed after expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year was time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second notice issued under section 21(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, after proceedings had already commenced on the basis of an earlier served notice, could extend the limitation period under the first proviso to section 21(2) so as to validate an assessment made beyond four years from the end of the assessment year.

Analysis: Section 21(1) requires service of a notice before escaped turnover can be assessed, making such notice a condition precedent to reassessment. The first proviso to section 21(2) allows assessment within one year from the date of service of "the notice under sub-section (1)" where that notice was served within four years. The notice contemplated by the proviso is the notice that validly initiates proceedings. Here, the proceedings had already commenced on the basis of the first notice served within time, and the later notice merely repeated the same facts without adding anything new. It was therefore a needless repetition and could not be treated as the notice that initiated proceedings for the purpose of extending limitation.

Conclusion: The second notice did not extend the period of limitation, and the assessment made after expiry of four years was not valid. The answer was in the negative, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was held to be time-barred because the later notice could not revive or extend the limitation already governing the proceedings initiated by the earlier notice.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of a limitation-extending proviso tied to service of "the notice" initiating reassessment proceedings, only the notice that validly commences those proceedings can be relied upon, and a later redundant notice on the same facts does not restart or extend the limitation period.

---