Escaped-turnover reassessment limitation turns on the notice date, and a Commissioner-appointed officer may validly continue proceedings.

For escaped-turnover reassessment under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, limitation runs from the notice initiating proceedings by the duly empowered authority, not from an earlier vigilance report, and the reassessment orders were held to be within the prescribed time. The Court also held that the Commissioner could validly appoint an officer to initiate and complete reassessment, and that this special reassessment power was not confined by the general turnover-based definition applicable to regular assessment. Withdrawal of one appointment and substitution of another did not invalidate proceedings already commenced, so the reassessment orders were upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment proceedings for the relevant financial years were initiated and completed within the limitation periods prescribed under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. (ii) Whether the officer appointed by the Commissioner was competent to initiate and complete reassessment of escaped turnover.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment proceedings for the relevant financial years were initiated and completed within the limitation periods prescribed under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The provisions governing escaped turnover permitted reassessment within eight years from the expiry of the year to which the tax related, and also required the reassessment order to be passed within the statutory period counted from initiation of proceedings. The notice issued to the assessee on 30 September 2002 was treated as the commencement of proceedings, and the later reassessment orders were held to be within time. The report sent by the vigilance officer to the Commissioner was not treated as the operative initiation date for limitation purposes. The Court further held that the three-year period under the limitation provision was satisfied on the facts.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were within limitation and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the officer appointed by the Commissioner was competent to initiate and complete reassessment of escaped turnover.

Analysis: The Court held that the Commissioner's power to appoint an officer for reassessment of escaped turnover flowed from the statutory scheme governing instructions, jurisdiction, and escaped turnover reassessment. That power was held to be independent of the general definition of assessing authority for regular assessment based on turnover and was not restricted by the rule dealing with ordinary registration or assessment matters. The withdrawal of one officer's appointment and substitution of another did not invalidate proceedings already initiated, since the reassessment action continued under a valid appointment made by the Commissioner. The reassessment order was also not vitiated merely because the office-holder changed.

Conclusion: The appointed officer was competent to act, and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment orders were upheld, and the writ appeal failed because the challenge to limitation and competence of the reassessing authority was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: For escaped-turnover reassessment, the operative date for limitation is the issuance of notice initiating proceedings by the duly empowered assessing authority, and the Commissioner may validly appoint and reassign such authority under the statutory scheme notwithstanding the general turnover-based definition applicable to regular assessment.

---