Revised tax demand and reconveyance principles govern recovery when appellate reduction leaves the original assessment incomplete.

Where an appellate authority reduces a sales tax assessment, the earlier demand cannot continue unchanged; the authorities must complete the consequential reassessment and issue a fresh demand before relying on recovery proceedings. The text also states that reconveyance of property purchased in tax recovery may still be granted on equitable grounds despite delay, particularly where no third-party rights have intervened and the Government itself purchased the property. It further notes that an illegality arose because property recoverable for Central sales tax dues should have been purchased in the name of the Central Government, not the State Government. On those facts, reconveyance was to follow payment of the reassessed dues, statutory interest, and expenses.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after the appellate authority reduced the sales tax assessment, the authorities were bound to complete revised assessment and issue a fresh demand before relying on the recovery sale. (ii) Whether the legal heirs of the assessee were entitled to reconveyance of the property despite the delay in seeking reconveyance and the Government's purchase of the property in recovery proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether, after the appellate authority reduced the sales tax assessment, the authorities were bound to complete revised assessment and issue a fresh demand before relying on the recovery sale.

Analysis: The original assessment had been set aside in appeal at least for one assessment year, and the assessing authority had not completed the consequential reassessment or issued a fresh demand reflecting the reduced liability. In such a situation, the post-appellate recovery position remained incomplete, and the demand based on the earlier assessment could not be treated as continuing unchanged. The decision also reflected the principle that when an appellate order reduces an assessment, the earlier demand falls and the tax liability must be recomputed in accordance with the appellate outcome.

Conclusion: The authorities were required to pass fresh orders and issue a revised demand in accordance with the appellate order.

Issue (ii): Whether the legal heirs of the assessee were entitled to reconveyance of the property despite the delay in seeking reconveyance and the Government's purchase of the property in recovery proceedings.

Analysis: The Court held that the long delay did not defeat relief in the peculiar facts, especially because no third-party rights had intervened and the Government itself had purchased the property. It also found an illegality in the recovery purchase because, where the amount was due to the Central Government under the Central Sales Tax Act, the property ought to have been purchased in the name of the Central Government and not in the name of the State Government. On equitable considerations as well as the lack of a completed reassessment after appeal, the heirs were found entitled to reconveyance on payment of the amount due with statutory interest and reconveyance expenses.

Conclusion: The legal heirs were entitled to reconveyance of the property on payment of the amounts due, notwithstanding the delay.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of reconveyance was set aside, and the authorities were directed to complete revised assessment and reconvey the property to the legal heirs upon payment of the reassessed dues, interest, and expenses.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessment is reduced in appeal and the authorities fail to complete the consequential reassessment and fresh demand, recovery based on the earlier demand cannot be sustained, and reconveyance may be ordered on equitable considerations where no third-party rights are involved.

---