Substantial compliance in reassessment notices can sustain escaped turnover proceedings despite misdescription of the reopening notice.

For escaped turnover, the reopening process must rest on the assessing authority's satisfaction based on information and on a notice issued within the prescribed time under the special reassessment provision. The form or label of the notice is not decisive if, in substance, it calls for the returns or particulars required by the Act and fairly communicates the reopening requirements. A mere misdescription does not destroy jurisdiction where the dealer files returns and participates without protest, because the defect is procedural and may be treated as waived if the statutory conditions for reopening are otherwise met. The notices under Section 17(4) were therefore treated as substantial compliance with Section 19A for periods still within time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessments were void for want of notice under Section 19A of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, or whether the notices issued under Section 17(4) substantially complied with the statutory requirements so as to sustain the assessments.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes between ordinary assessments on returns and proceedings for escaped assessment. For escaped turnover, the assessing authority must be satisfied on information and must initiate proceedings by a notice under the special reopening provision within the prescribed period. The form of the notice is not decisive if, in substance, it conveys the requirements contemplated by the reopening provision, is issued within time, and calls upon the dealer to furnish returns or particulars required by the Act. A mere misdescription of the notice does not by itself destroy jurisdiction where the dealer files returns and takes part in the proceedings without protest. In such a situation, the defect is procedural and may be treated as waived, provided the statutory conditions for reopening are otherwise present.

Conclusion: The notices issued under Section 17(4) were held to amount in substance to sufficient compliance with Section 19A for periods still within time, and the assessments for such periods were not void. The challenge succeeded only to the extent that the assessments had to be confined to the periods lawfully open to reassessment.

---