Procedural fairness in reassessment requires personal hearing and consideration of objections; prior finality bars reopening limitation.

A limitation objection could not be reopened because it had already been conclusively decided between the parties in an earlier round and had attained finality. The reassessment orders were nevertheless vitiated because they did not reflect compliance with the prior direction to afford a personal hearing and did not show consideration of the assessee's objections received before the orders were passed. For that procedural non-compliance, the orders were set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration after hearing, while the limitation challenge remained barred by the earlier final order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plea of limitation could be reopened in the present round of writ petitions despite an earlier final order between the parties on the same point; (ii) Whether the impugned assessment orders were liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the prior direction for personal hearing and for non-consideration of the objections received from the assessee.

Issue (i): Whether the plea of limitation could be reopened in the present round of writ petitions despite an earlier final order between the parties on the same point.

Analysis: The limitation objection had already been raised and conclusively decided in the earlier round of litigation. That order had attained finality and had been acted upon by the parties. In such circumstances, the same issue could not be reagitated in the present proceedings.

Conclusion: The limitation plea was not available to the assessee in the present round.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned assessment orders were liable to be set aside for non-compliance with the prior direction for personal hearing and for non-consideration of the objections received from the assessee.

Analysis: The earlier order had directed a personal hearing before passing fresh orders. The impugned orders did not show what transpired on the scheduled date of hearing, did not even record the personal hearing, and also failed to consider the objections stated to have been received before the orders were passed. The absence of these material references showed non-compliance with the prior judicial direction and a failure to consider the assessee's objections.

Conclusion: The impugned assessment orders were set aside and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh after personal hearing.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded on the ground of procedural infirmity in the reassessment process, while the limitation challenge remained barred by the earlier final order.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a reassessment order is passed in disregard of a prior judicial direction requiring personal hearing and without considering timely objections, the order is vitiated and liable to be set aside, even if the merits of the tax dispute are left open.

---