Independent application of mind is required for reassessment; audit objections alone cannot justify mechanical reopening.

Reassessment under Section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, read with Rule 23, requires the assessing authority to independently apply its mind and form an objective satisfaction that turnover has escaped assessment. An audit objection may trigger scrutiny, but it cannot substitute for the officer's own decision-making or compel reopening mechanically. Where the record shows that notices were issued only on the basis of an audit objection, without independent consideration of the facts, the jurisdictional requirement for reassessment is not satisfied and the notices and reassessment orders are invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment notices under Section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 were valid when issued solely on the basis of an audit objection without the Sales Tax Officer forming an independent opinion on escapement of turnover.

Analysis: Reopening under Section 12(8) read with Rule 23 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 requires the statutory authority to independently apply its mind and form an objective satisfaction that turnover has escaped assessment. An audit objection may be a relevant input, but it cannot dictate the decision. Where the record shows that the notice was issued mechanically and without independent consideration of the facts, the jurisdictional requirement for reassessment is not met.

Conclusion: The notices and reassessment orders were invalid as they were mechanically issued on the basis of audit objection without independent application of mind, and the assessee succeeded.

---