Doctrine of merger in reassessment proceedings cannot unsettle an untouched original assessment; writ challenge failed.

The earlier writ decision had quashed only the reassessment concerning turnover from exim scrips under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and left the original assessment intact. Because that original assessment was not set aside, the doctrine of merger did not extinguish or absorb it, and the assessing authority retained jurisdiction to pass a further order consistent with the surviving assessment. The Court also found no legal infirmity or demonstrated prejudice from the absence of a show cause notice and rejected the ancillary objections raised in writ jurisdiction. The reassessment challenge therefore failed, and the impugned order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned reassessment order was liable to be quashed on the ground that it was contrary to the earlier writ decision and that the doctrine of merger deprived the assessing authority of jurisdiction to pass it.

Analysis: The earlier writ decision had quashed only the reassessment made by adding the turnover relating to exim scrips under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and had not set aside the original assessment. On the materials before the Court, the original assessment remained untouched, and the petitioner failed to establish that the earlier judgment had absorbed or extinguished that assessment so as to attract the doctrine of merger. The Court held that merger could not be stretched to a situation where the prior judicial verdict had not dealt with the original assessment, and that no legal infirmity or prejudice was shown in the impugned order. The contention based on absence of show cause notice and other ancillary objections did not persuade the Court to interfere in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment failed, and the impugned order was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: The doctrine of merger does not apply to an assessment that was not set aside by the earlier writ decision, and a subsequent order consistent with the surviving original assessment cannot be quashed merely by invoking that doctrine.

---