Reassessment remains valid despite citation of the wrong provision where substantive power to reopen exists under the Act.

Section 17(1) of the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Act, 1972 was broad enough to permit reassessment where tax had been short-levied because of inadvertence, error, misconstruction, or a dealer's misstatement on quantity, description, or value. The reopening power was therefore available on the facts, and the use of Section 14(3) instead of Section 17(1) did not invalidate the action where the Act otherwise conferred substantive authority to reassess. The objection to the reassessment failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether reopening of the assessment was invalid because it was initiated under Section 14(3) of the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Act, 1972 instead of Section 17(1) of that Act.

Analysis: Section 17(1) is enough to cover cases where tax has been short-levied due to inadvertence, error, misconstruction, or a misstatement by the dealer as to the quantity, description, or value of the goods. The power to reopen was available on the facts, and the mere citation of the wrong provision did not vitiate the action when the substantive authority to reassess existed under the Act.

Conclusion: The reopening was valid notwithstanding reference to the wrong section, and the objection to reassessment failed.

---