Jurisdictional objection to reassessment must be examined at the threshold before proceedings continue.

A dealer facing reassessment under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act could challenge the existence of the basic facts and jurisdictional conditions for reopening. The notice was not the sole foundation of jurisdiction, and the assessing authority could examine the record to see whether the reopening basis existed. Because the objection went to jurisdiction and the desirability of continuing the proceeding, it had to be considered at the threshold as a preliminary issue. The Sales Tax Officer was therefore bound to consider the dealer's objection before proceeding further and to allow the dealer to file and substantiate it.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dealer was entitled to raise a jurisdictional objection to reassessment proceedings initiated under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, and whether the Sales Tax Officer was required to consider that objection before proceeding further.

Analysis: A dealer facing proposed reassessment has a right to question the existence of the basic facts and jurisdictional conditions that justify initiation of the proceeding. The notice is not the sole foundation of jurisdiction, and the authority may look to the record to determine whether the requisite basis exists. Where the objection goes to jurisdiction and to the very desirability of continuing the proceeding, it should be considered at the threshold, akin to a preliminary issue, so that unnecessary prolongation of proceedings is avoided. The dealer was therefore entitled to place its objection before the Sales Tax Officer, who was bound to consider whether the conditions for reopening were satisfied.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection had to be considered by the Sales Tax Officer before proceeding with reassessment, and the dealer was granted an opportunity to file and substantiate that objection.

---