Broad reassessment powers under sales tax law upheld against change-of-opinion and jurisdiction challenges.

Section 30 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was interpreted broadly to cover tax that has escaped assessment, including cases where exemption was allegedly wrongly granted or the earlier view is revisited on the same material. The Court held that a reassessment notice based on survey findings and alleged escapement could not be invalidated merely as a change of opinion. It also held that mens rea is not required in fiscal proceedings, departmental inconsistency did not create res judicata, and the Anti-evasion Wing was competent to proceed once escapement was noticed. The writ challenge was rejected and the notice was treated as valid and within jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued for reassessment under section 30 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was without jurisdiction on the grounds of mere change of opinion, absence of escapement of assessment, lack of authority in the Anti-evasion Wing, and inapplicability of the exemption notification to the dispute.

Analysis: The challenge turned on the scope of section 30 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, which treats an assessment as escaped where, for any reason, tax has escaped wholly or partly or has been underassessed in any way or under any circumstances. The Court held that the statutory language is wide and unambiguous and is capable of covering cases where exemption was wrongly granted or where the earlier view on the same material is revisited. It further held that the notice was founded on a survey and alleged escapement, and therefore could not be struck down merely because the petitioner called it a change of opinion. The Court also held that mens rea is not a necessary ingredient in fiscal proceedings and that the departmental inconsistencies on the notification did not create a bar of res judicata. The Anti-evasion Wing was held competent to proceed once escapement was noticed.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was held to be valid and within jurisdiction, and the petitioner failed to establish any ground for writ interference.

---