Reassessment requires independent satisfaction and recorded reasons; audit objections cannot replace statutory discretion under the sales tax rules.

Reassessment under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act requires the authority's own recorded satisfaction, based on a factual basis and compliance with Rule 23 and Form VI. A reopening notice issued mechanically, without independent reasons, or under the dictate of an audit objection, is invalid because the authority cannot abdicate its discretion to the audit party. The use of the expression "for any reason" does not widen the power beyond the statutory "reason to believe" standard. The notice must also be preceded by formation and recording of satisfaction, and the statutory rules and prescribed form must be followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 can be initiated mechanically without recording reasons or forming an independent opinion; (ii) whether the statutory authority can act under the dictate of an audit objection and thereby abdicate its own discretion; (iii) whether a reassessment notice can precede the recording of satisfaction in the file; (iv) whether the expression "for any reason" in section 12(8) confers wider power than "reasons to believe" and whether action under that provision must conform to the statutory rules and form.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 can be initiated mechanically without recording reasons or forming an independent opinion?

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires a notice under Rule 23 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 in Form VI, and Form VI itself uses the expression that the authority has "reason to believe" that turnover has escaped assessment. The authority must therefore have a factual basis and form its own satisfaction before reopening. A mechanical notice, unsupported by any recorded basis, does not satisfy the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: Reassessment cannot be initiated mechanically. The answer is against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory authority can act under the dictate of an audit objection and thereby abdicate its own discretion?

Analysis: An audit objection may be a relevant input, but it cannot control the statutory decision-making power. The reassessment power under section 12(8) must be exercised by the authority itself after independent consideration. If the officer merely follows the audit note and does not apply an independent mind, the exercise of power is vitiated as an abdication of discretion.

Conclusion: The authority cannot surrender its discretion to the audit party. The answer is against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether a reassessment notice can precede the recording of satisfaction in the file?

Analysis: The record showed that the notice had been issued before any corresponding order was entered in the file. That sequence demonstrated that the notice was not preceded by a bona fide formation of opinion. A later recording cannot cure a notice that was issued first and only afterwards sought to be justified on paper.

Conclusion: A reassessment notice cannot validly precede the formation and recording of satisfaction. The answer is against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the expression "for any reason" in section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 confers wider power than "reasons to believe" and whether action under that provision must conform to the statutory rules and form?

Analysis: The expression "for any reason" in section 12(8) was read in light of Rule 23 and Form VI, which are part of the statutory framework. Since Form VI incorporates the concept of "reason to believe," the phrase "for any reason" does not enlarge the power beyond that standard. The authority must act consistently with the rules and the prescribed form, and the statutory notice must disclose the basis for reopening.

Conclusion: The expression "for any reason" does not confer wider power than "reasons to believe," and compliance with the statutory rules and form is mandatory. The answer is against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment notice was vitiated by mechanical issuance, absence of independent satisfaction, and impermissible dependence on the audit objection, and therefore the writ petition succeeded with quashing of the impugned notice.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 requires the authority's own reasoned satisfaction based on the statutory scheme in the rules and prescribed form, and a notice issued mechanically or under the dictate of an external audit objection is invalid.

---