Reassessment based on later statutory declaration upheld, and writ relief refused for bypassing the available appellate remedy.

Reassessment under the Assam Value Added Tax Act was upheld because the revenue relied on the assessee's later statutory declaration in Form 65A, which disclosed higher quantity and value of goods than the original return; that subsequent material was sufficient to support reopening and not a bare allegation of escaped assessment. The writ challenge was also rejected because the reassessment order was appealable and no exceptional ground justified bypassing the statutory appellate remedy, so writ jurisdiction was not exercised.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether reassessment under section 40 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 could be initiated on the basis of the declaration furnished in form 65A, and (ii) whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the availability of an appellate remedy.

Issue (i): whether reassessment under section 40 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 could be initiated on the basis of the declaration furnished in form 65A.

Analysis: The subsequent material relied upon by the revenue was the petitioner's own statutory declaration in form 65A, which disclosed quantity and value of goods higher than those shown in the return. That material was found after the original assessment and was sufficient to form the basis for reassessment. The challenge that reassessment could not proceed merely on an allegation of escape of assessment was rejected on the facts, because the notice rested on later-discovered material and not on a bare suspicion. The Court also noticed that the check-post declaration was a statutory document required in inter-state trade.

Conclusion: Reassessment was held to be valid and supported by subsequent material, against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the availability of an appellate remedy.

Analysis: The impugned reassessment order was appealable, and the petitioner had approached the writ court without first availing the statutory appellate remedy. In these circumstances, the writ petition was viewed as a shortcut bypassing the remedy provided by law. No exceptional ground was found to justify interference in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be not maintainable, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment based on the petitioner's later statutory declaration was upheld, and the challenge was rejected on the ground of availability of an alternate statutory remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment can be sustained when it is founded on material discovered subsequent to the original assessment, and writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised where an effective appellate remedy is available.

---