Reopening completed assessments requires clear retrospective power; a non-taxable transaction is not a wrongly allowed exemption.

Section 14(4)(cc) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act could not be used to reopen assessments that had already become final before the clause was inserted, because an enlargement of reopening power is not retrospective without express words or necessary intendment. The reassessment also failed because the original assessment did not grant any statutory deduction or exemption; it accepted the assessee's contention that the supplies were not sales at all. A transaction treated as outside the charging provision is not the same as a wrongly allowed exemption or deduction, so the statutory precondition for section 14(4)(cc) was absent. The reassessment orders were therefore without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 14(4)(cc) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 could be invoked to reopen assessments that had already become final before that clause was inserted. (ii) Whether the exclusion of turnover on the footing that the supplies were not sales at all could be treated as a case of deduction or exemption wrongly allowed so as to attract section 14(4)(cc).

Issue (i): Whether section 14(4)(cc) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 could be invoked to reopen assessments that had already become final before that clause was inserted.

Analysis: Section 14(4)(cc) was introduced only by the 1978 amendment, and the assessments for the relevant years had already attained finality before its insertion. A provision enlarging the power to reopen completed assessments cannot be applied retrospectively in the absence of express words or necessary intendment. The clause was therefore not available to disturb assessments completed earlier.

Conclusion: The invoking of section 14(4)(cc) to reopen the completed assessments was invalid and without jurisdiction, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the exclusion of turnover on the footing that the supplies were not sales at all could be treated as a case of deduction or exemption wrongly allowed so as to attract section 14(4)(cc).

Analysis: The original assessment did not proceed on any statutory exemption or deduction claim. The assessee's case was that the supplies under compulsion did not amount to sales within the meaning of the Act, and the assessing authority accepted that position. A claim that a transaction is not taxable at all is different from a claim for exemption under the Act, rules, or notifications. Since no deduction or statutory exemption had been allowed, the condition precedent for section 14(4)(cc) was absent.

Conclusion: The proceedings could not be sustained under section 14(4)(cc), in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment orders failed for want of jurisdiction, and the revisions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A completed assessment cannot be reopened under a subsequently inserted provision unless retrospective operation is clearly provided, and section 14(4)(cc) applies only where a statutory deduction or exemption has been wrongly allowed, not where the original view was that the transaction was not taxable at all.

---