Reassessment for under-assessed tax can extend to turnover already assessed when the lawful rate was applied incorrectly.

Section 12A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was construed to permit reassessment not only for escaped turnover but also where tax had been levied at a rate lower than the lawful rate, including cases of under-assessment, wrong deductions, or wrongly allowed exemptions. The power was held to extend even when the relevant turnover had already been before the assessing authority at the original assessment. On the classification point, reassessment of rayon yarn was treated as correction of the applicable rate for the same turnover, not as a fresh jurisdictional exercise beyond section 12A. The challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 12A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 empowered the assessing authority to reassess turnover where the turnover was already before it but tax had been levied at a lower rate than the rate at which it was assessable. (ii) Whether the assessing authority lacked jurisdiction because it was effectively changing the classification of rayon yarn from one entry in the Second Schedule to another.

Issue (i): Whether section 12A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 empowered the assessing authority to reassess turnover where the turnover was already before it but tax had been levied at a lower rate than the rate at which it was assessable.

Analysis: The provision was construed as conferring reassessment power not only in cases of escaped turnover, but also where the dealer had been under-assessed, where tax had been levied at a rate lower than the lawful rate, or where deductions or exemptions had been wrongly allowed. The text of the provision, especially the non obstante clause, showed that reassessment was permissible even if the whole or part of the turnover had already been before the assessing authority at the original assessment. The earlier decisions relied upon were distinguished as they dealt only with escaped turnover and did not consider the wider language of section 12A as amended.

Conclusion: The reassessment power under section 12A extended to cases where tax had been assessed at a lower rate than the lawful rate, even though the turnover had been fully before the assessing authority; the issue was answered against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessing authority lacked jurisdiction because it was effectively changing the classification of rayon yarn from one entry in the Second Schedule to another.

Analysis: The turnover under assessment was consistently identified as rayon yarn. Entry 24 did not refer to rayon yarn, while entry 147 specifically covered synthetic fibre, and rayon was undisputedly a synthetic fibre. The reassessment was therefore directed to correcting the rate applicable to the same turnover, not to embarking on a fresh exercise of classification beyond the scope of section 12A. The contention that jurisdiction was absent because the authority was changing the classification was rejected.

Conclusion: The reassessment was valid and within jurisdiction; the issue was answered against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed because the assessing authority could reopen the assessments under section 12A to correct the lower rate applied to the same turnover, and the impugned action did not suffer from want of jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute expressly authorises reassessment for tax levied at a rate lower than the rate legally applicable, the assessing authority may reopen the assessment even if the turnover was already before it at the original assessment, and such action is not invalid merely because it involves applying the correct schedule entry to the same turnover.

---