Remand reopens entire assessment, allowing omitted taxable opening stock to be included in fresh proceedings.

Limitation plea under the sales tax law failed because the challenge had already been negatived in earlier proceedings and had attained finality; independently, the assessment had commenced within time through notices and remained pending until the final order. After the assessment was set aside on appeal and remanded, the entire matter reopened, so the assessing authority could lawfully include opening stock omitted from the original assessment. On remand, such an item was not treated as escaped assessment merely because it had not been taxed earlier. The revision was therefore found without merit and the assessment was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the original assessment was barred by limitation under the sales tax law applicable to the assessment year 1962-63. (ii) Whether, after the appellate order setting aside the assessment and remanding the matter, the assessing authority could include the value of opening stock that had not been considered in the original assessment.

Issue (i): Whether the original assessment was barred by limitation under the sales tax law applicable to the assessment year 1962-63.

Analysis: The plea of limitation had already been raised before the appellate tribunal in the earlier appeal and had been negatived. That finding was not pursued further and therefore attained finality. Independently, the assessment proceedings had commenced within time by notices issued to the assessee, and the pendency of those proceedings continued until the final assessment order. On that footing, the original assessment could not be treated as time-barred.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation failed and was rejected against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether, after the appellate order setting aside the assessment and remanding the matter, the assessing authority could include the value of opening stock that had not been considered in the original assessment.

Analysis: Once an assessment is set aside on appeal and the matter is remitted, the entire assessment is reopened and remains pending before the assessing authority. In that situation, there is no scope to treat any item as having escaped assessment merely because it was omitted from the original order. An item otherwise exigible to tax may be considered in the fresh assessment, and the concept of escaped assessment cannot be equated with a mere non-assessment in a pending proceeding.

Conclusion: The assessing authority was entitled to include the opening stock in the revised assessment, and the assessee's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The revision was devoid of merit, and the tax assessment was sustained in full.

Ratio Decidendi: When an assessment is set aside and remanded, the entire assessment proceedings remain pending at large, and items omitted from the original assessment may be examined and taxed in the fresh assessment if otherwise exigible; such items are not treated as escaped assessment merely because they were not previously assessed.

---