Reassessment requires disclosed reasons and materials before reopening, and ex parte tax assessments may be remitted for fresh proceedings.

Reassessment under rule 10 of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957 and section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 requires the assessing officer to form an independent prima facie belief that turnover has escaped assessment, and that basis must be available for scrutiny. Where the dealer seeks the reasons and materials for reopening, those materials cannot be withheld before they are used against him. The ex parte assessment orders were therefore quashed as procedurally unfair, and the matter was remitted for fresh proceedings with disclosure of the reopening basis and opportunity to object.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment proceedings under rule 10 of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957 and section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 could be sustained without disclosure of the reasons and materials for reopening; (ii) Whether the ex parte assessment orders were liable to be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment proceedings under rule 10 of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957 and section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 could be sustained without disclosure of the reasons and materials for reopening.

Analysis: Reopening of an assessment requires the assessing authority to form its own prima facie belief that turnover has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed. The reasons for such belief must exist and be capable of scrutiny when challenged. Where the dealer participates in the proceedings and seeks the basis of reopening, the materials proposed to be used against him cannot be withheld. Administrative guidance from a superior officer cannot curtail the assessing officer's independent judicial discretion.

Conclusion: The reassessment process could not be sustained in the absence of disclosure of the reasons and relevant materials for reopening.

Issue (ii): Whether the ex parte assessment orders were liable to be quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Analysis: Since the petitioners had sought the reasons and materials for reopening and were not supplied them, the assessment proceedings suffered from procedural unfairness. In the interests of justice, the proper course was to nullify the assessment orders and require the petitioners to appear before the assessing authority, who was then to indicate the materials for reopening and proceed in accordance with law. The petitioners were also preserved the right to raise objections to reopening.

Conclusion: The ex parte assessment orders were quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the impugned assessments were set aside, and the reassessment proceedings were directed to continue only after disclosure of the basis for reopening and observance of due process.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment can be initiated only on the assessing officer's own recorded prima facie belief that escaped turnover exists, and the dealer must be afforded disclosure of the reasons and materials relied upon before those materials are used against him.

---