Fresh reassessment requires new evidence; reopening on the same record was without jurisdiction and was quashed.

Under the unamended Section 39(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, a fresh reassessment could be initiated only if further evidence had come to the notice of the prescribed authority. The material on deduction and the tax deduction certificate was already before the authority when the earlier reassessment was made and refund granted, so the later reassessment was based on a different view of the same record rather than new evidence. In the absence of the statutory precondition, the authority lacked jurisdiction to reopen and alter the concluded reassessment, and the subsequent reassessment orders and demand notices were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessing authority could initiate a fresh reassessment under Section 39(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and modify the earlier reassessment order when no further evidence had come to its notice.

Analysis: Under the unamended Section 39(2), further reassessment was permissible only when further evidence came to the notice of the prescribed authority. The material relating to deduction and the tax deduction certificate was already before the authority when the earlier reassessment order was made and refund was granted. The later reassessment was not based on any new evidence; instead, it proceeded on a different view of the same material and on facts relating to another contractor. The authority therefore lacked jurisdiction to reopen and alter the concluded reassessment in the absence of the statutory precondition.

Conclusion: The subsequent reassessment orders and demand notices were quashed, and the writ petitions were allowed to that extent.

---