Limitation bars revival of reassessment; later amendment cannot reopen a time-barred proceeding, and writ relief may still lie.

A reassessment that had already become time-barred could not be revived by a later amendment to the U.P. Trade Tax Act, because expiry of limitation created a vested protection against reopening and the amended proviso could not operate retrospectively to confer jurisdiction. The writ remedy under Article 226 was also treated as maintainable despite an alternative appellate remedy, where the assessee showed that the departmental forum would not independently apply the law already declared and the remedy was therefore not effective. The commentary's central principle is that a subsequent amendment cannot reopen a closed proceeding once limitation has expired.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment could be reopened under the amended proviso to section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act after the original period of limitation had already expired. (ii) Whether the existence of an appellate remedy barred the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment could be reopened under the amended proviso to section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act after the original period of limitation had already expired.

Analysis: The assessment year in question had become time-barred before the amendment brought in by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1991. The amended proviso could not be applied so as to revive a proceeding that had already become closed by limitation. Once the limitation period had expired, the assessee acquired a vested right against reopening, and that right could not be defeated by a later amendment. On that basis, the reopening and the consequent reassessment were without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The reopening of assessment was invalid and the reassessment order was liable to be set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of an appellate remedy barred the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Although an alternative remedy is ordinarily relevant, the Court accepted the assessee's apprehension that the departmental authorities were treating themselves as bound by the superior departmental order and were not independently applying the law already declared by the Court. In those circumstances, the remedy was not an effective bar to writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative remedy, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned reopening and reassessment were quashed, and the assessee succeeded in the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment proceeding cannot be revived by a subsequent amendment after the limitation period has already expired, because the expiry of limitation creates a vested protection against reopening.

---