TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the amendment defining "market value" brought into force from 1 April 2014 could be used retrospectively to reopen assessments that had already attained finality under section 22(1) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005; (ii) Whether the reassessment notices issued on the basis of that later amendment were sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether the amendment defining "market value" brought into force from 1 April 2014 could be used retrospectively to reopen assessments that had already attained finality under section 22(1) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.
Analysis: Section 22(1) permits reassessment only when the statutory preconditions are satisfied and the basis for reopening must exist from material relevant to the original assessment. The later definition of "market value" under the 2014 amendment was effective prospectively from 1 April 2014 and could not, by itself, supply the requisite basis for reopening completed assessments for earlier years. A subsequent change in law, without retrospective operation, cannot be treated as a reason to reopen concluded assessments, and the concept of change of opinion acts as a safeguard against converting reassessment into review. The amendment was also treated as substantive rather than merely clarificatory.
Conclusion: The amendment could not be applied retrospectively to justify reopening of concluded assessments; this issue is answered in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment notices issued on the basis of that later amendment were sustainable.
Analysis: The reassessment notices were founded on the later amendment and the communication directing reopening on that very basis. Since the amendment could not operate retrospectively and did not furnish the necessary jurisdictional basis under section 22(1), the notices lacked legal support. The State could not resile from the recorded basis for reopening, and the notices therefore could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The reassessment notices were unsustainable and liable to be quashed; this issue is answered in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the completed assessments failed, and the orders of the learned single judges quashing the reopening action were left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A later amendment operating prospectively cannot constitute the jurisdictional basis for reopening assessments already concluded, and reassessment cannot rest on a mere change of law or change of opinion absent retrospective effect or fresh material linking the escapement to the original assessment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
