Form F acceptance bars reassessment absent fraud, misrepresentation or collusion; consequential penalty was unsustainable.

Once assessment had been completed on acceptance of Form F declarations, it could not be revised unless the authority recorded a finding of fraud, misrepresentation or collusion. The later reassessment was based only on an inspection report alleging the declarations were incorrect, which was insufficient to sustain revision. Applying the governing Supreme Court principle, the Madras HC held that the reassessment and consequential penalty were not sustainable, and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment and levy of tax and penalty could be sustained after Form F declarations had been accepted, in the absence of a finding of fraud, misrepresentation or collusion.

Analysis: The assessment had originally been completed on the basis of Form F declarations accepted by the assessing authority. The subsequent revision was founded on an inspection report alleging that the declarations were incorrect and untrue because the assessee allegedly received the same value as shown in the pro forma invoice. The Court followed the principle that once assessment is completed on acceptance of Form F, it cannot be revised unless the authority records a finding that the original assessment was vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or collusion. The reasoning in the cited Supreme Court decision was treated as squarely governing the controversy.

Conclusion: The reassessment and consequential penalty were not sustainable, and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

---