Limitation for reassessment cannot revive an extinguished power, and three days' notice was not reasonable.

An amendment enlarging reassessment limitation could not revive a power to reopen an assessment that had already become time-barred under the unamended Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. Because the reassessment power over the 1972-73 assessment had already expired before the amendment came into force, the amended section 14(4-A) could not apply, and the reassessment was illegal and unsustainable. The Court also found that a notice granting only three days to explain before reassessment did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard. On both grounds, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the amended limitation provision in section 14(4-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 could be applied to reopen an assessment that had already become time-barred under the unamended law; and (ii) whether the short time granted for explanation before reassessment satisfied the requirement of reasonable opportunity.

Issue (i): whether the amended limitation provision in section 14(4-A) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 could be applied to reopen an assessment that had already become time-barred under the unamended law.

Analysis: The reassessment related to the assessment year 1972-73 and, under the unamended law, the authority's power to reopen had expired before the amendment came into force on 17 January 1978. The Court treated the limitation bar as a fetter on the assessing authority's power and held that an enlarged period under an amendment may apply only if the right to reassess had not already become extinguished. Since the assessment had already become final and barred under the old provision, the amended provision could not revive the lost power.

Conclusion: The amended section 14(4-A) did not apply, and the reassessment was illegal and unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the short time granted for explanation before reassessment satisfied the requirement of reasonable opportunity.

Analysis: The notice granted only three days to respond in a matter sought to be reopened after several years. The Court held that the opportunity contemplated by the reassessment provision must be reasonable and that three days was plainly inadequate in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The opportunity granted was not reasonable and the reassessment was vulnerable on this ground as well.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were quashed, and the assessee succeeded in the revision.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment enlarging the period for reassessment cannot revive a power to reassess that had already been lost under the unamended limitation provision, and a reassessment notice must afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

---