Reassessment under escaped turnover provisions cannot be used to review completed assessments after a later judgment.

Section 19(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 permits reassessment only where there is escaped turnover, under-assessment, assessment at a lower rate, or wrong deduction, and it cannot be used to revisit a completed assessment merely because a later judicial decision has made the earlier assessment appear erroneous. The provision requires a real jurisdictional link between the stated ground and the alleged under-assessment. Where the issue is that an earlier assessment has become erroneous and prejudicial to revenue because of a subsequent final judgment or order, section 19-A(1) is the specific provision. Notices issued under section 19(1) without satisfying these conditions were invalid and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether notices for reassessment under section 19(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 were valid when they were based on a later judicial decision, and whether the case instead fell within section 19-A(1) of the Act.

Analysis: Section 19(1) permits reassessment only where an assessment has resulted in under-assessment, escaped assessment, assessment at a lower rate, or wrong deduction, and the power is confined to escaped turnover and cannot be used as a device for reviewing or revising a completed assessment merely because of a later decision in another case. The provision requires a real nexus between the stated reason and the alleged under-assessment. Where the grievance is that an earlier assessment has become erroneous in the light of a later judgment, the appropriate provision is section 19-A(1), which specifically deals with reassessment rendered erroneous and prejudicial to revenue because of a judgment or order that has become final. The notices in question were issued without satisfying the jurisdictional conditions of section 19(1) and amounted to an impermissible attempt to reopen the matter on a review-like basis.

Conclusion: The notices issued under section 19(1) were invalid and unsustainable, and the challenge succeeded.

---