Non-disclosure in the proper sales tax return justified reopening despite disclosure in the State return.

Failure to disclose a transaction in the prescribed Central sales tax return amounted to non-disclosure of the material facts required for assessment under the Central Act. Disclosure of the same sale in the State return as an intra-State transaction did not satisfy the obligation to disclose turnover correctly in the proper Central return, because the two enactments operated in different fields and the assessment enquiry under each was distinct. The principle that full disclosure of primary facts bars reopening applied only where the relevant facts were truly and correctly disclosed. Reopening under Rule 14-A(8)(a) was therefore valid, and the assessee's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's omission to disclose the transaction in the return under the Central sales tax regime amounted to failure to disclose turnover or particulars correctly so as to justify reopening under Rule 14-A(8)(a) of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 1957.

Analysis: The prescribed return under the Central sales tax rules required disclosure of all sales, including intra-State sales, because the assessing authority had to determine whether a transaction was taxable under the Central enactment. The assessee admittedly did not disclose the transaction in the Central return and disclosed it in the State return only as an intra-State sale. Such disclosure under the State Act did not amount to disclosure of the material facts relevant to assessment under the Central Act, because the two enactments operated in different fields and the enquiry under each was distinct. The principle that disclosure of all primary facts bars reopening applied only where the relevant facts were fully and correctly disclosed; it could not assist an assessee who failed to make the required disclosure in the proper return. Earlier decisions relied upon by the assessee were distinguished on their facts and were not treated as laying down a contrary rule.

Conclusion: The reopening was valid, and the assessee's challenge to action under Rule 14-A(8)(a) failed.

---