Revised sales tax assessment set aside for lack of fresh material, defective service, and limitation.

A revised sales tax assessment based only on audit objections was unsustainable because no fresh material outside the record was shown, and reassessment cannot rest on a later change of view on the same material. Service of the show-cause notice and revised order also failed to follow the mandatory sequence in Rule 58 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, offending natural justice. The revision was further held time-barred because it was served after the permissible period had expired, and the availability of an appellate remedy did not defeat writ jurisdiction where the order was said to be without jurisdiction and barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revised assessment could be sustained when it was founded only on audit objections and no fresh material dehors the record was shown; (ii) whether service of the show-cause notice and revised assessment order complied with Rule 58 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules and the requirements of natural justice; (iii) whether the revised assessment was barred by limitation and the writ petition was nevertheless liable to be declined on the ground of alternative remedy.

Issue (i): whether the revised assessment could be sustained when it was founded only on audit objections and no fresh material dehors the record was shown.

Analysis: The assessment had already been completed, carried in appeal, and followed by a consequential order. The impugned revision was based on audit objections and not on any new material that had come to light after the earlier assessment. A reassessment or revision cannot be made merely because the authority later takes a different view on the same material already on record.

Conclusion: The revised assessment could not be sustained on this ground and was invalid.

Issue (ii): whether service of the show-cause notice and revised assessment order complied with Rule 58 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules and the requirements of natural justice.

Analysis: Rule 58 prescribes the modes of service in a defined sequence, including delivery, leaving at the last known address, registered post where the address is known, and affixture only when the earlier modes are not practicable. On the record, the notice and order were not shown to have been served in conformity with that statutory procedure, and the sequence and timing relied on by the authority were found unsatisfactory. The failure to effect proper service offended the rule and the doctrine of audi alteram partem.

Conclusion: Service was defective and the revised assessment was vitiated by breach of natural justice.

Issue (iii): whether the revised assessment was barred by limitation and the writ petition was nevertheless liable to be declined on the ground of alternative remedy.

Analysis: Even assuming the authority's version on service and revision to be correct, the order was served only after the period within which action could validly be taken had expired. The unexplained delay in service was fatal. In these circumstances, the existence of an appellate remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction because the order was alleged to be without jurisdiction and time-barred.

Conclusion: The revised assessment was barred by limitation, and the writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revised assessment was set aside for want of fresh material, defective service in breach of statutory procedure and natural justice, and limitation.

---