Reopening of entry tax liability barred absent fresh facts after a final finding negated local-area status.

Alternative remedy was rejected because the writ petitions raised jurisdictional questions on reopening and the effect of prior findings, making the revisional forum not efficacious in the circumstances. Reassessment under the entry tax law was held unsustainable because an earlier final determination had found the work site did not fall within a local area, and no material change in facts, location, or legal foundation was shown. The reassessment notices and consequential assessment order did not specifically address that settled finding, so the completed tax position on the local-area issue could not be reopened on the same factual basis. The notices, reassessment proceedings, and assessment order were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were not entertainable on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy; (ii) Whether reassessment and the consequential notices and assessment orders under the entry tax law could be sustained when an earlier final finding had held that the work site did not fall within a local area and no material change in facts was shown.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were not entertainable on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The objection based on alternative remedy was rejected because the matter involved jurisdictional questions, including the legality of reopening and the effect of earlier findings on the character of the area. The Court found that the writ petitions had already been admitted and that the availability of the revisional forum did not make the remedy efficacious in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The objection of alternative remedy was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether reassessment and the consequential notices and assessment orders under the entry tax law could be sustained when an earlier final finding had held that the work site did not fall within a local area and no material change in facts was shown.

Analysis: The Court treated the existence of a local area as a fundamental aspect governing liability under the entry tax law. Earlier orders, based on documentary material, had held that the petitioner's work site did not fall within a local area. In the absence of any material change in location, law, or factual foundation, the assessing authority could not reopen the completed position by taking a different view. The reassessment notices and the assessment order also did not specifically confront the earlier determination on the local-area issue. The Court applied the principle that a settled fundamental aspect should not be reopened without fresh facts justifying a different conclusion.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings, notices, and consequential assessment order were unsustainable and were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded because the department could not reopen entry-tax liability on the same factual foundation after an earlier final determination had negated the existence of a local area for the work site.

Ratio Decidendi: A completed tax position on a fundamental factual aspect cannot be reopened in the absence of material change or fresh facts justifying a different view.

---