Reassessment beyond limitation requires valid sanction and proper notice and hearing before it can be sustained.

Reassessment initiated beyond the normal limitation period must rest on demonstrable lawful sanction and procedural compliance. Where the reassessment record did not disclose the date or service of the Additional Commissioner's permission, the existence of valid approval under the U.P. Trade Tax Act required fresh scrutiny. The absence of clear material on notice and a meaningful opportunity of hearing also raised a jurisdictional defect that could not be ignored. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter remitted to the first appellate authority for reconsideration of these jurisdictional and procedural objections.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment proceedings could be sustained when the existence and procedural compliance of the Additional Commissioner's permission under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 were in question. (ii) Whether the reassessment order could stand when the assessee alleged absence of notice and opportunity of hearing before the assessing authority.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment proceedings could be sustained when the existence and procedural compliance of the Additional Commissioner's permission under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 were in question.

Analysis: The basis of the reassessment was the alleged permission to proceed beyond the normal period of limitation. The reassessment order did not disclose the date of such permission, the date of service, or the date of issuance of reassessment notice. In these circumstances, the existence of the permission and compliance with the prescribed procedure required reconsideration by the first appellate authority.

Conclusion: The issue was not finally sustained against the assessee and was remitted for fresh examination.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment order could stand when the assessee alleged absence of notice and opportunity of hearing before the assessing authority.

Analysis: The objection went to the root of the reassessment proceedings. The proximity between the circular relied upon and the reassessment order, coupled with the absence of any indication in the record regarding a meaningful opportunity of hearing, raised a jurisdictional and procedural question that had to be examined afresh by the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The reassessment could not be affirmed without fresh scrutiny of the notice and hearing requirements.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted to the first appellate authority for reconsideration of the jurisdictional and procedural objections raised by the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: When reassessment is initiated beyond the normal period of limitation, the existence of lawful sanction and compliance with notice and hearing requirements are jurisdictional matters that must be verified before the reassessment can be sustained.

---