Appealability of revised assessment and remand compliance: reassessment without the directed opportunity to adduce evidence was unsustainable.

A revised or modified assessment made pursuant to an appellate remand remains appealable under the general appeal provision, unless the remand itself lawfully limits the scope of challenge; the rejection of the appeals as not maintainable was therefore incorrect. A reassessment completed without giving the assessee the opportunity directed in the remand order to produce evidence of non-liability under section 5A is unsustainable, because it breaches the appellate directions and natural justice. The revised assessments were thus liable to be set aside to the extent they were made without that opportunity, and the matter was remitted for fresh completion after hearing the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal lay against a revised or modified assessment made pursuant to an earlier appellate remand order; (ii) Whether the revised assessments were sustainable when they were completed without affording the assessee the opportunity contemplated in the remand order to prove non-liability under section 5A.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal lay against a revised or modified assessment made pursuant to an earlier appellate remand order.

Analysis: Section 34 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 provides for an appeal against any order of assessment under section 17, and does not exclude a revised or modified assessment from appellate scrutiny. The scope of such an appeal may be confined by the terms of the remand, but the remedy itself remains available. Where the earlier appellate order has finally concluded certain matters, they cannot be reopened, but where the challenge is that the revised assessment does not conform to the remand directions, the appeal is maintainable.

Conclusion: The appeal against the revised assessment was maintainable and the rejection of the appeals as not maintainable was illegal.

Issue (ii): Whether the revised assessments were sustainable when they were completed without affording the assessee the opportunity contemplated in the remand order to prove non-liability under section 5A.

Analysis: The earlier appellate order had contemplated that exemption or non-liability in respect of single-point goods purchased with bills would be allowed if proved, which necessarily required an opportunity to produce supporting evidence. The assessing authority completed the reassessment without notice or opportunity to produce the bills, thereby failing to comply with the remand directions. A reassessment made in breach of such directions and without the contemplated opportunity is vitiated.

Conclusion: The revised assessments were unsustainable to the extent they were made without affording the assessee the opportunity directed by the appellate authority.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in challenging both the refusal to entertain the appeals and the revised assessments for the relevant years, and the matter was sent back for fresh completion of reassessment after giving an opportunity to prove the claim for non-liability.

Ratio Decidendi: A revised or modified assessment is appealable under the general appeal provision, and an assessment made in breach of a remand order requiring an opportunity to adduce evidence is liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the appellate directions and for violation of natural justice.

---