Reassessment notice validity under sales tax law upheld where prima facie shortfall was disclosed and completed assessment was not proved.

Reassessment notices under section 11-E(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 were treated as valid where they disclosed the Commissioner's prima facie satisfaction about incorrect turnover particulars and identified the alleged tax shortfall; imperfect wording such as using "evading" instead of "reduction" did not by itself vitiate the notice, so the dealer could seek further particulars and respond. On the record, a completed assessment under section 11(1) for the relevant period was not established because no prescribed notice, endorsed forms, assessment order, or demand notice was produced. The reopening notices were upheld, while the reopening orders were quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned notices issued for reopening the deemed assessments under section 11-E(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 were invalid for want of sufficient particulars and for alleged breach of natural justice. (ii) Whether an assessment under section 11(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 had already been made for the period ending 31 March 1991 so as to exclude resort to section 11-E(2).

Issue (i): Whether the impugned notices issued for reopening the deemed assessments under section 11-E(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 were invalid for want of sufficient particulars and for alleged breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The notices stated the Commissioner's prima facie satisfaction that incorrect statements of turnover or incorrect particulars of sales had been furnished and quantified the tax allegedly evaded. The use of the word "evading" instead of "reduction" in the notice did not, by itself, vitiate the notice. The stated tax shortfall gave an adequate indication of the alleged incorrectness in the returns at the stage of issuing notice, though further particulars could still be sought for the purpose of showing cause.

Conclusion: The notices were held not to be invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether an assessment under section 11(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 had already been made for the period ending 31 March 1991 so as to exclude resort to section 11-E(2).

Analysis: No notice in the prescribed form under section 11(1) was produced, no endorsed declaration forms were shown, and no copy of an assessment order or notice of demand was served. On that material, the existence of a completed assessment under section 11(1) was not established.

Conclusion: It was held that no assessment under section 11(1) was shown to have been made.

Final Conclusion: The notices initiating reopening were upheld, but the reopening orders passed on 29 June 1999 were quashed and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law, with an opportunity to seek further particulars and file show cause.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice is not invalid merely because it uses imperfect language, if it discloses prima facie satisfaction and enough indicia of the alleged tax shortfall to enable the dealer to seek further particulars and respond.

---