Limitation for reassessment under sales tax law barred introduction of new turnover after expiry, while valid notice survived for escaped turnover.

Section 14(4-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act requires reassessment or levy under section 14(4) within four years from service of the assessment order, and section 14(7) excludes only the period needed to complete a fresh assessment on the turnover actually set aside. A notice issued within time for escaped turnover could continue after exclusion of the set-aside period, but a new additional turnover not covered by any section 14(4) notice within the limitation period could not be introduced after expiry. The remand order did not enlarge the scope of the proceeding. The notice was therefore barred and without jurisdiction only for the newly added turnover, while it remained valid for the turnover already validly noticed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings under section 14(4) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, the assessing authority could, after expiry of the four-year period prescribed by section 14(4-A), introduce for the first time an additional turnover alleged to have been wrongly exempted, and whether section 14(7) permitted exclusion of time only in respect of the turnover actually covered by the set-aside assessment.

Analysis: Section 14(4-A) requires any assessment or levy under section 14(4) to be made within four years from the date on which the assessment order was served. Section 14(7) permits exclusion of the period between the date of an assessment and the date on which that assessment is set aside, but only for completing the fresh assessment arising from that set-aside order. The earlier notice relating to the escaped turnover of Rs. 7,89,385.01 had been validly initiated within time and, after exclusion of the period covered by section 14(7), could still be proceeded with. The additional turnover of Rs. 53,08,954.83, however, had never been the subject of any section 14(4) notice within four years from service of the original assessment order, and could not be introduced for the first time after limitation had expired. The remand order also did not enlarge the scope of the proceeding beyond the turnover actually remanded.

Conclusion: The notice was barred by limitation and without jurisdiction insofar as it proposed to include Rs. 53,08,954.83. It was valid and could proceed in respect of Rs. 7,89,385.01. The challenge succeeded only to that extent.

---