Prima facie material for reassessment notices is required before proceeding; interim stay on the impugned notices remained in force.

Reassessment notices based on an alleged sale of diesel for consideration were challenged after a completed assessment, and the Court held that the Assessing Officer had to place at least prima facie material to support the foundational allegation before proceeding. As no reply or supporting evidence was produced to meet the petitioner's assertions, the Court found the reassessment attempt to rest on an unsubstantiated premise. The cited authorities were not treated as an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, which continues to depend on the facts and the Court's self-imposed restraint. The applications to vacate the interim stay were rejected, and the stay on the impugned notices remained in force.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applications under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India seeking vacation of the interim stay on the reassessment notices deserved to be allowed, and whether the respondents had shown sufficient material to justify initiation of reassessment proceedings.

Analysis: The challenge arose from notices proposing reassessment after a completed assessment under Sections 24, 25 and 55 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and purported exercise under Section 26 of that Act read with Section 174 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court held that the alleged sale of diesel for consideration was a foundational fact and the initial burden to show at least prima facie material supporting that allegation lay on the Assessing Officer. As no reply or supporting material was placed to meet the petitioner's assertions, the Court found that the respondents were attempting to proceed on an unsubstantiated premise. The cited authorities did not create an absolute bar against writ jurisdiction, which remains subject to self-imposed restraint and depends on the facts of each case.

Conclusion: The applications seeking vacation of the interim order were rejected, and the Court declined to interfere with the subsisting stay on the impugned notices.

---