Reassessment for escaped turnover may withdraw wrongly granted exemptions, but only on fresh material, not mere change of opinion.

Reassessment powers under the Central Sales Tax regime extend to reopening a completed assessment and withdrawing exemptions wrongly granted, because escaped or under-assessed turnover may be brought to tax under the relevant State rules. However, such reopening is valid only where fresh material comes into existence after the original assessment and not on a mere change of opinion; on the facts, no such fresh material was found, so the reopening was unjustified. The remand for de novo enquiry was nevertheless proper because the transactions, F forms, and inter-State movement required further factual examination. The State's revisions therefore failed, and the Tribunal's remand was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessing authority had power under the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules to reopen a completed assessment and withdraw wrongly granted exemptions. (ii) Whether the reopening was justified in the absence of fresh material and whether the remand for de novo enquiry was proper.

Issue (i): Whether the assessing authority had power under the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules to reopen a completed assessment and withdraw wrongly granted exemptions.

Analysis: Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 enables the State sales tax authorities to exercise their powers for assessment and reassessment under the State law, subject to the Act and the Rules. Rule 14-A(8) of the Central Sales Tax (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 1957 authorises reopening where turnover has escaped assessment or been under-assessed for any reason and empowers the authority to determine the correct turnover to the best of its judgment. The power is broad enough to cover cases where exemptions were wrongly granted, and the clarificatory nature of section 14(4)(cc) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 supports that construction.

Conclusion: The assessing authority did have jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and to withdraw wrongly granted exemptions.

Issue (ii): Whether the reopening was justified in the absence of fresh material and whether the remand for de novo enquiry was proper.

Analysis: Reopening is permissible only when there is material coming into possession after the original assessment and not merely a change of opinion. On the facts found, the Tribunal recorded that no fresh material had emerged after the original assessment. The reopening therefore lacked the factual foundation required in law. As to the remand, the Tribunal found that the transactions, the F forms, and the nature of the inter-State movement required a fresh factual enquiry, and the matter could not be finally concluded on the existing record.

Conclusion: The reopening was unjustified for want of fresh material, and the remand for de novo enquiry was proper.

Final Conclusion: The revisions filed by the State failed, while the remand directed by the Tribunal was sustained because the assessment could not be reopened on a mere change of opinion, although the statutory power to reopen existed in principle.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment provision permitting reopening for escaped or under-assessed turnover can be used to withdraw wrongly granted exemptions, but the jurisdiction can be exercised only on fresh material and not on a mere change of opinion; where the record requires further factual examination, remand for de novo enquiry is justified.

---