Reopening of completed assessment under section 17D requires fresh material, Commissioner's permission, and proof of prejudice for any natural justice challenge.

Reopening of a completed assessment under section 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 may be sustained on fresh material, including an omitted penalty order, when prior permission of the Commissioner has been obtained. A challenge based on absence of notice or hearing fails unless actual prejudice is shown. Where the original assessment was made under section 17D, any reassessment or reopening must also follow the same statutory procedure and cannot depart from that framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the sanction accorded by the Commissioner for reopening the completed assessment could be quashed for want of notice and opportunity of hearing and for absence of prejudice; (ii) whether the reopening had to be carried out in the manner prescribed for assessments under section 17D.

Issue (i): Whether the sanction accorded by the Commissioner for reopening the completed assessment could be quashed for want of notice and opportunity of hearing and for absence of prejudice.

Analysis: The reopening was founded on the Commissioner's prior permission under section 17D(2)(d) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The petitioner had earlier not challenged that sanction when the assessment proceedings were questioned. The materials showed that a penalty order had not been taken into account at the time of the original assessment, and that circumstance constituted fresh material justifying reopening. In a complaint of breach of natural justice, prejudice also had to be shown, which was not established.

Conclusion: The challenge to the Commissioner's sanction was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the reopening had to be carried out in the manner prescribed for assessments under section 17D.

Analysis: Since the original assessment itself had been completed under section 17D, the reopening pursuant to the Commissioner's sanction had to follow the same statutory manner. The statutory scheme contemplated reassessment only in accordance with section 17D, and the reopening could not depart from that procedure.

Conclusion: The reopening was directed to be completed under section 17D itself.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on the validity of the sanction for reopening, but the assessing process was confined to the statutory procedure applicable under section 17D.

Ratio Decidendi: Reopening of a completed assessment under section 17D of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 can be sustained on fresh material with prior permission of the Commissioner, and a challenge based on natural justice requires proof of prejudice; where the original assessment was made under that provision, the reopening must also conform to the same statutory procedure.

---