Statutory limitation for remand-based fresh assessment cannot be extended by later appeals or a general reassessment provision.

A fresh assessment made pursuant to a remand under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act had to be completed within two calendar years from the remand order under section 18(8)(a). The later dismissal of the second appeal did not extend that statutory period, and an executive direction could not override the limitation. Section 19A was inapplicable because it concerns reassessment after an earlier order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in light of a final court or tribunal order, which was not the position here. The 1998 fresh assessment orders were therefore time-barred and illegal.

---

---

Issues: Whether a fresh assessment made pursuant to a remand order was barred by limitation under section 18(8)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, and whether section 19A of the Act could justify the belated assessment.

Analysis: Proviso (a) to section 18(8) required a fresh assessment, made to give effect to a finding or direction under section 38, to be completed within two calendar years from the date of the remand order. The appellate authority's remand order dated 27 October 1986 triggered that limitation, and the later dismissal of the second appeal did not extend the statutory period. Section 19A was held inapplicable because it dealt with reassessment where an earlier order had become erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in light of a final court or tribunal order, which was not the situation here. The Court further held that the executive direction contemplated by the proviso could not override the statutory limitation.

Conclusion: The fresh assessment orders passed in 1998 were beyond the period prescribed by section 18(8)(a) and were illegal; section 19A did not save them.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a specific limitation period for making a fresh assessment pursuant to a remand, the assessment must be completed within that period and cannot be validated by reliance on a general reassessment provision or executive direction inconsistent with the statute.

---