Express authorisation is mandatory for reassessment; informal or unproven empowerment makes the demand invalid.

Under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act and Rules, reassessment could be made only by an officer expressly authorised by the Commissioner, and the Court treated that authorisation as a mandatory jurisdictional that could not be inferred from informal means. An e-mail printout was found insufficient to prove the required formal empowerment, so the reassessment was without jurisdiction and void. The impugned demand notices were therefore quashed in favour of the assessee, without examining the merits of the alleged tax evasion.

---

---

Issues: Whether the officer who made reassessment under section 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was duly authorised by the Commissioner in terms of rule 46 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules.

Analysis: Section 39(1) empowers reassessment only by the prescribed authority, and rule 46 requires the Commissioner to authorise an officer for that purpose. The statutory scheme therefore demands an express authorisation, and not an implied, oral, telephonic, or otherwise informal empowerment. The material placed before the Court showed only an e-mail printout, which was found insufficient to establish the mandatory authorisation contemplated by the Act and the Rules. In the absence of such authorisation, the reassessment was held to be without jurisdiction and without authority of law, without examining the merits of the alleged tax evasion.

Conclusion: The reassessment was invalid for want of express authorisation by the Commissioner, and the impugned demand notices were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute requires reassessment to be made only by an officer expressly authorised by the Commissioner, such authorisation must be shown by clear and formal material, and reassessment made without that authorisation is without jurisdiction and void.

---