Escaped assessment jurisdiction upheld, with suppressed turnover and inter-State sales supporting reassessment and stay-period interest excluded.

Writ intervention was not barred merely because an appellate remedy existed, where the petitions had remained pending for an extended period under an interim order and relegation at that stage was considered inappropriate. Reassessment under the escaped assessment provisions was held within jurisdiction: a mistaken factual or legal conclusion did not make the order without jurisdiction, and recorded materials showing suppression of production and turnover supported a best judgment estimate of escaped turnover. Inter-State movement of goods attracted Central sales tax treatment. Interest was recoverable only when the demand was legally enforceable, so no interest could run during the period when recovery was stayed by the Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petitions should be rejected for non-exhaustion of the statutory alternative remedy, (ii) whether the reassessment under the escaped assessment provisions was without jurisdiction or otherwise invalid, including the findings on suppressed production and inter-State sales, and (iii) whether interest could be charged for the period during which recovery remained stayed by the Court.

Issue (i): whether the writ petitions should be rejected for non-exhaustion of the statutory alternative remedy

Analysis: The availability of an appellate remedy ordinarily weighs against writ intervention, but the petitions had remained pending for an exceptionally long period after an interim order kept the objection open. In that situation, relegating the assessee to the statutory forum at that late stage was held to be inappropriate, and the matter was examined on merits.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative remedy was not accepted as a ground to dismiss the petitions at that stage.

Issue (ii): whether the reassessment under the escaped assessment provisions was without jurisdiction or otherwise invalid, including the findings on suppressed production and inter-State sales

Analysis: The authority acting under section 18(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 was held to possess jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. A wrong conclusion on facts or law does not by itself make an order coram non judice. On the materials recorded in reassessment, the authority found substantial suppression of production and turnover, and the estimate of escaped turnover was treated as a permissible best judgment estimate with a reasonable nexus to the discovered facts. The Court also held that the inter-State movement of goods brought the transactions within the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the challenge based on mere change of opinion was rejected.

Conclusion: The reassessment and the levy of Central sales tax were upheld and the challenge on merits failed.

Issue (iii): whether interest could be charged for the period during which recovery remained stayed by the Court

Analysis: Interest was held recoverable only for the period when the demand was legally enforceable. Since recovery had been stayed by the Court, no interest could run during the subsistence of the stay order. Interest was, however, held payable for the period before the stay and from the date of the judgment onwards until payment.

Conclusion: Interest was limited to the periods before the stay order and after the judgment, and excluded for the stay period.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment and tax demand were sustained, subject to the limitation on interest for the period covered by the stay order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessing authority has jurisdiction to reopen escaped assessment and the reassessment is supported by recorded materials showing suppression, a writ court will not interfere merely because the assessee disputes the estimate; and interest cannot be charged for the period when recovery is stayed by judicial order.

---