Further reassessment requires disclosed new evidence in the order itself; later explanations cannot cure lack of jurisdiction.

A further reassessment under section 39(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act is valid only if the order itself discloses the further evidence that triggered the power. The court noted that later objections or affidavits cannot cure a missing jurisdictional basis, and a wrong statutory citation alone does not invalidate the order. Although an appellate remedy was raised, writ jurisdiction was entertained because the foundational precondition for section 39(2) was absent from the order. The further reassessment order was therefore quashed, while the underlying tax liability was left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned further reassessment order could be sustained under section 39(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 in the absence of any disclosed further evidence, and whether the availability of an appeal under section 62 barred writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 39(2) permits further reassessment only where further evidence has come to the notice of the prescribed authority. The impugned order did not disclose any such further evidence, and the deficiency could not be cured by later explanations in the form of objections or affidavit. Although the existence of an appellate remedy was pleaded, the writ petition was entertained because the foundational requirement for invoking section 39(2) was missing from the order itself. A wrong citation of the statutory provision, by itself, did not invalidate the order, but the absence of jurisdictional basis did.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and was quashed. The challenge under writ jurisdiction succeeded despite the alternative remedy objection.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order could not stand for want of the statutory precondition for further reassessment, and the petitioner obtained relief, while the tax liability itself was left open.

Ratio Decidendi: A further reassessment order under section 39(2) can be upheld only if the order itself discloses the further evidence that triggered the exercise of power, and its validity cannot be saved by subsequent explanations.

---