Limitation for reassessment based on change of opinion bars a jurisdictionally defective notice; article 227 relief remains available.

A reassessment notice for escaped turnover was held barred by limitation because the turnover had already been disclosed and accepted in the original return, and the later attempt reflected only a change of opinion by the assessing authority. In such cases, rule 14-A(8)(b) required reassessment within four years from the end of the relevant year, and the notice issued beyond that period was without jurisdiction. The petition under article 227 was also maintainable despite an alternative remedy, because the assessing authority acted in a quasi-judicial capacity and the challenge went to the jurisdiction of the notice on admitted facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice proposing reassessment of escaped turnover was barred by limitation under rule 14-A(8)(b) of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules and therefore without jurisdiction; (ii) whether the petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the notice proposing reassessment of escaped turnover was barred by limitation under rule 14-A(8)(b) of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules and therefore without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The turnover had already been disclosed in the return filed under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the assessing authority had accepted it as not taxable. The later notice proceeded on a different view that the same turnover constituted inter-State sales taxable under the Central Sales Tax Act. On these admitted facts, the escapement was not due to any failure to disclose turnover or particulars correctly, but due to a subsequent change of opinion by the assessing authority. The case therefore fell under rule 14-A(8)(b), which required reassessment within four years from the expiry of the year to which the tax related. The impugned notice was issued beyond that period.

Conclusion: The notice was barred by limitation and was without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India was maintainable notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy.

Analysis: The assessing authority, while exercising powers under the sales tax law, performs quasi-judicial functions and determines rights of parties, and is therefore amenable to supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India. Since the challenge went to the very jurisdiction of the notice, the existence of an appellate remedy against a future reassessment order did not preclude relief. The matter also did not require further factual investigation, as the jurisdictional objection was capable of being decided on the admitted facts.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable under article 227 despite the alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The impugned reassessment notice could not be sustained, and supervisory relief was warranted because the notice was issued after the statutory period applicable to cases not involving nondisclosure.

Ratio Decidendi: Where escaped assessment arises from a reassessing authority's change of opinion on facts already disclosed, the reassessment must conform to the shorter limitation period prescribed for cases not involving failure to disclose, and a jurisdictionally barred notice may be corrected in supervisory proceedings.

---