Reassessment jurisdiction under VAT law upheld where the Commissioner authorised the officer to reopen a concluded assessment.

Reopening of a concluded assessment under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act was upheld because reassessment could be initiated only by a prescribed authority, meaning an officer authorised by the Government or Commissioner. The record showed that the Commissioner had conferred reassessment jurisdiction on the second respondent, and the Act did not limit such authority to a single officer or require that only the original assessing officer act. An assessee could not insist on a particular officer for reconsideration, and a preliminary proposal to verify the assessment did not by itself show lack of jurisdiction or mala fides. The notices were therefore within jurisdiction and not quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned notices for reopening the concluded assessment under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 were without jurisdiction on the ground that the second respondent was not the prescribed authority or competent authority.

Analysis: The assessment could be reopened only by a prescribed authority under section 39 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, read with section 2(24), which defines prescribed authority as an officer authorised by the Government or the Commissioner. The communication on record stated that the Commissioner had conferred reassessment jurisdiction on the second respondent. The Act does not restrict the Commissioner to a single officer or require that only the original assessing officer may act as prescribed authority. An assessee has no right to insist that a particular officer alone examine the matter, and the preliminary proposal to verify the correctness of the concluded assessment did not by itself establish absence of jurisdiction or mala fides.

Conclusion: The notices were held to be within jurisdiction and not liable to be quashed.

---