Statutory preconditions for reassessment reopening must be recorded before issuance of notice; unsatisfied conditions make reopening unsustainable.

Reassessment could not be sustained where the statutory preconditions for reopening were not shown to exist. The Court noted that reopening required the Commissioner's recorded satisfaction that the dealer had concealed sales or furnished incorrect turnover particulars, based on the prescribed conditions. Because the impugned notice was issued without any finding that those conditions were satisfied, the reopening was held unsustainable and the notice was set aside. The authority was left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law if the statutory requirements are properly met.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reassessment notice could be sustained when the statutory conditions for reopening were not shown to exist.

Analysis: The order recorded that reassessment could be reopened only upon the Commissioner being satisfied that the dealer had concealed sales or furnished incorrect turnover particulars, and that such satisfaction had to be founded on the prescribed conditions. The impugned notice was found to have been issued without any finding that those preconditions were fulfilled. The Court therefore held that the reopening was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the reopening of assessment succeeded, and the petitioner obtained relief against the impugned notice, while leaving the authority free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment cannot be validly reopened unless the statutory preconditions for formation of satisfaction are first met and recorded.

---