Time-barred reassessment cannot be revived by a later tax clarification on concessional rate applicability.

Reassessment under the Assam General Sales Tax Act was held barred where the show-cause notice was issued after the statutory period had expired, so the power to reopen concluded assessments had been lost. The text further notes that a later ruling on the concessional-rate notification only clarified its non-retrospective effect and did not revive a time-barred reassessment power. On that basis, the reassessment orders, together with the additional tax and interest demand, were quashed as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 was barred by limitation when the show-cause notice was issued more than eight years after the original assessments; (ii) Whether the later decision on the prospectivity of the concessional-rate notification justified reopening assessments that had already attained finality.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 was barred by limitation when the show-cause notice was issued more than eight years after the original assessments.

Analysis: The original assessments had been completed in 2006, whereas the reassessment notice was issued in 2011. The reassessment power was invoked under Section 18 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, but the statutory period for reopening had already expired. In taxation matters, equitable considerations cannot override the clear language of the charging and reassessment provisions, and where limitation has extinguished the power to reopen, escaped turnover cannot be recovered through reassessment.

Conclusion: The reassessment was barred by limitation and was illegal.

Issue (ii): Whether the later decision on the prospectivity of the concessional-rate notification justified reopening assessments that had already attained finality.

Analysis: The subsequent ruling on the concessional notification only clarified that the lower rate could not be applied retrospectively. That ruling did not authorise reopening where the statutory right to reassess had already been lost. A later declaration on tax liability cannot revive a power of reassessment that has become time-barred under law.

Conclusion: The later decision did not validate the reassessment of the concluded assessments.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment orders, along with the demand for additional tax and interest, were unsustainable and were quashed, leaving the assessee entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment for escaped tax cannot be sustained once the statutory limitation period has expired, and a subsequent clarification on taxability does not revive a time-barred power to reopen concluded assessments.

---