Declared goods taxation and reopening of deemed assessments upheld where statute fixes levy stage and permits reassessment for incomplete returns.

Declared goods may be taxed at a second point where the statute fixes a definite levy stage tied to whether the goods have already borne tax, so a resale after a tax holiday at the first point remains taxable. Reopening of deemed assessments under the special reassessment scheme is governed by the statutory limitation structure, and the legal fiction protecting deemed assessments does not bar reopening for incorrect or incomplete returns. Fresh assessments made pursuant to reopening are valid within the prescribed period, and the scheme raises no constitutional infirmity under Articles 14 or 265. A subordinate assessing officer may complete the reassessment independently, provided the reopening order does not dictate the merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether resale of declared goods at the second point was liable to sales tax under section 5(2)(a)(vd) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and consistent with section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (ii) Whether reopening of deemed assessments under section 11E(2) and the consequent fresh assessments under section 11(1) were barred by limitation or unconstitutional. (iii) Whether fresh assessments could validly be made by an officer subordinate in rank to the authority that ordered reopening under section 11E(2).

Issue (i): Whether resale of declared goods at the second point was liable to sales tax under section 5(2)(a)(vd) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and consistent with section 15(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: Section 5(2)(a)(vd) was read as fixing a definite and ascertainable stage of levy, namely, the stage at which the goods had not suffered tax at any earlier stage. The provision was held to comply with the requirement that tax on declared goods should not be levied at more than one stage. The fact that the first seller enjoyed tax holiday and did not pay tax meant that the goods had not suffered tax earlier, so the subsequent reseller could be taxed. The provision was also held not to create unreasonable discrimination, because the classification was linked to whether the goods had already borne tax and bore a direct nexus to the object of preventing tax-free escape of goods.

Conclusion: The challenge to levy on second-point resale failed; the levy was upheld and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether reopening of deemed assessments under section 11E(2) and the consequent fresh assessments under section 11(1) were barred by limitation or unconstitutional.

Analysis: The limitation scheme was read as containing a special regime for reopening deemed assessments and for fresh assessments made pursuant to such reopening. The second proviso to section 11(2a) was treated as permitting fresh assessment within four years from the reopening order, while section 11E(2) itself authorised reopening within the special period contemplated by the statute. The legal fiction created by section 11E(1) was held to be limited and subject to section 11E(2), so it could not be used to shield incorrect or incomplete returns. The Court found no constitutional infirmity under Articles 14 or 265.

Conclusion: Reopening and fresh assessment were held to be within time and valid; the challenge failed and was against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether fresh assessments could validly be made by an officer subordinate in rank to the authority that ordered reopening under section 11E(2).

Analysis: The reopening order under section 11E(2) was treated as ending with the decision to reopen, after which the assessing authority under section 11(1) was required to act independently and quasi-judicially according to law. No dictation or fetter was found in the reopening order, and the statutory appeal and revision remedies remained available. The principle against assessment on the dictation of a superior was distinguished because the subordinate authority here was not bound by any advisory or factual finding on merits.

Conclusion: Fresh assessment by a subordinate assessing officer was held valid; the objection failed and was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme for single-point taxation of declared goods, reopening of deemed assessments, and consequential reassessment was upheld, and the applications were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute fixes a definite and ascertainable point of levy and expressly makes deemed assessments subject to reopening for incorrect or incomplete returns, the legal fiction is limited by the reopening provision and fresh assessment may validly follow within the special limitation period.

---