Reassessment beyond limitation requires concealment or inaccurate returns; a mere change of opinion cannot justify reopening.

Reopening of assessment beyond the ordinary five-year period was held invalid because the assessing authority lacked objectively supportable reasons to believe that the dealer had concealed sales or knowingly furnished inaccurate returns. The recorded basis was only a later scrutiny of the same documents already on file, showing at most a change of opinion that a deduction for high seas sales had been wrongly allowed. As the earlier Central Sales Tax assessment had attained finality, the statutory conditions for reopening under section 35(1)(b) were not met. The impugned notice was quashed and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice reopening the assessment under section 35(1)(b) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 was valid when it was issued beyond the ordinary five-year period on the basis of a previously allowed deduction under section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: Reopening after the extended period required the assessing authority to have reason to believe that the dealer had concealed sales or knowingly furnished inaccurate returns. The recorded basis for reopening was only a later scrutiny of the same case records and documents already on file, which showed that the deduction for high seas sales had been wrongly allowed. The assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act had not been reopened and had attained finality. A mere change of opinion, doubt, or conjecture founded on existing records did not satisfy the statutory conditions for reopening under section 35(1)(b).

Conclusion: The reopening notice was invalid and was quashed. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment could not be reopened in the absence of the jurisdictional requirements prescribed by the statute, and the impugned notice was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment beyond the prescribed period is invalid unless the statutory preconditions of concealment or knowing furnishing of inaccurate returns are satisfied on objectively supportable grounds, and not on a mere change of opinion based on material already on record.

---