TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether reassessment under section 40 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was validly initiated on the basis of material subsequently found from the petitioner's declaration in form 65A; (ii) whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the availability of an appeal and other statutory remedies.
Issue (i): Whether reassessment under section 40 of the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was validly initiated on the basis of material subsequently found from the petitioner's declaration in form 65A.
Analysis: The reassessment was founded on a statutory declaration furnished by the petitioner in form 65A, which showed a higher quantity and value of goods than those reflected in the return assessed earlier. That declaration constituted material discovered after the assessment order and supplied the basis for the reopening. The objection that reassessment could not be made merely on an allegation of escaped assessment was rejected because the authority acted on subsequent material, not on suspicion alone.
Conclusion: The reassessment was held to be valid and was not vitiated for want of subsequent material.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the availability of an appeal and other statutory remedies.
Analysis: The impugned order was appealable, yet the petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction directly. The existence of a statutory appellate remedy weighed against interference in writ jurisdiction, especially where the challenge was directed against an assessment-related order supported by record material.
Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be not maintainable in the circumstances and was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment failed, and the petitioner was left to the statutory consequences of the assessment order.
Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment is sustainable where the authority relies on material discovered subsequent to the original assessment, and writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be entertained when an efficacious statutory appeal is available.
TaxTMI 
