Recorded reasons to believe in writing are mandatory before reassessment notices can validly reopen completed assessments.

A reassessment notice under Section 24 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 is invalid unless the assessing authority has recorded reasons to believe in writing before issuing it. That jurisdictional pre-condition is mandatory, and a reference to a possible direction under Section 49 does not cure the defect where the statutory requirement under Section 24 is unmet. Because the foundational notice was void, the reassessment order and all consequent proceedings could not survive and were quashed. The challenge therefore succeeded, and the reassessment action based on the impugned notice was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice issued for reassessment under Section 24 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 was valid in the absence of recorded reasons to believe in writing; (ii) whether the reassessment order and consequent proceedings were liable to be quashed.

Issue (i): Whether the notice issued for reassessment under Section 24 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 was valid in the absence of recorded reasons to believe in writing.

Analysis: The power to reopen a concluded assessment under Section 24 is conditioned upon the existence of recorded reasons to believe before issuance of notice. That requirement is jurisdictional and mandatory. In the absence of records showing such reasons, the notice cannot be sustained. The reference to a possible direction under Section 49 did not cure the defect because the statutory pre-condition under Section 24 itself remained unfulfilled.

Conclusion: The notice was invalid and bad in law.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment order and consequent proceedings were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: Once the foundational notice was held to be void for non-compliance with the mandatory jurisdictional requirement, the reassessment proceedings could not survive. The defect went to the root of the reassessment and rendered the entire exercise unsustainable.

Conclusion: The reassessment order and all consequent proceedings were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, and the reassessment action founded on the impugned notice could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice reopening a completed assessment is void unless the assessing authority has recorded reasons to believe in writing before issuing it; failure to satisfy this jurisdictional requirement invalidates the reassessment proceedings.

---