Reassessment cannot rest on prospective amendment or change of opinion without fresh material; writ remedy remains open for jurisdictional challenge.

Writ jurisdiction remained available where the challenge went to reopening of a concluded assessment on alleged lack of statutory precondition, so the existence of an appellate remedy did not bar the petition. Reassessment could not be sustained on a mere change of opinion, and a subsequent amendment stated to operate prospectively, together with a circular, did not by itself supply jurisdiction to reopen earlier assessments. In the absence of fresh or additional material, the reassessment notice and order were invalid, and the proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy under the taxing statute; (ii) whether reassessment could be reopened on the basis of a prospective amendment to the definition of market value and a corresponding circular, without fresh material and merely on a change of opinion.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy under the taxing statute.

Analysis: The challenge went to the jurisdiction to reopen a concluded assessment. Where a notice is issued without satisfaction of the statutory precondition or where the authority is alleged to have acted without jurisdiction, the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether reassessment could be reopened on the basis of a prospective amendment to the definition of market value and a corresponding circular, without fresh material and merely on a change of opinion.

Analysis: Reassessment power cannot be exercised as a matter of course. It requires the statutory conditions for reopening to exist, and it cannot be used to review a completed assessment on a mere change of opinion. A subsequent change in law, especially one stated to operate prospectively, cannot by itself supply the jurisdictional basis for reopening an assessment already completed for earlier years. In the absence of any fresh or additional material, reopening on the strength of the amendment and circular was impermissible.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice and the reassessment order were invalid.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld writ jurisdiction, rejected the objection based on alternate remedy, and quashed the reassessment proceedings as being founded only on a prospective amendment and change of opinion.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment of a concluded tax assessment cannot be sustained on a mere change of opinion or on a subsequent prospective amendment, unless the statutory preconditions for reopening are met on the basis of fresh, relevant material.

---