Audit-based reassessment without independent statutory opinion is without jurisdiction, and writ relief remains available despite alternative remedy.

Reassessment under Rule 12(4) of the Central Sales Tax (Odisha) Rules, 1957 requires the assessing authority to independently form an opinion, on information in its possession, that turnover has escaped assessment or an exemption was wrongly allowed. A reopening driven only by an audit objection, without recorded reasons or application of mind, was treated as a mechanical review of a concluded assessment and held without jurisdiction. The availability of an alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ relief because the action was alleged to be jurisdictionally defective and taken without satisfying the statutory precondition. The reassessment order and consequential refusal to rectify were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment under Rule 12(4) of the Central Sales Tax (Odisha) Rules, 1957 could be initiated merely on the basis of an audit objection without the assessing authority forming an independent opinion on escapement or wrong allowance of exemption. (ii) Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy when the impugned reassessment was alleged to be without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment under Rule 12(4) of the Central Sales Tax (Odisha) Rules, 1957 could be initiated merely on the basis of an audit objection without the assessing authority forming an independent opinion on escapement or wrong allowance of exemption.

Analysis: Rule 12(4) permits reopening only when the assessing authority, on the basis of information in its possession, forms an opinion that turnover has escaped assessment, been under-assessed, or that deduction or exemption has been wrongly allowed. The earlier audit assessment had already considered the export-sale claim under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the basis of the record and accepted the return figures. The reopening notice was issued without recording reasons or showing independent application of mind, and the reassessment was driven by the audit objection. Such reopening amounted to a review of the concluded assessment on the same material, which is impermissible where the statute does not confer a review power.

Conclusion: The reassessment under Rule 12(4) was not legally sustainable and was without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy when the impugned reassessment was alleged to be without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar where the authority acts without jurisdiction or in violation of settled procedural requirements. Since the reassessment notice and consequential order were found to have been issued mechanically, without the statutory precondition of forming an opinion, the case fell within the recognized exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the objection based on alternative remedy failed.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment order and the consequential refusal to rectify could not be sustained, and the assessee obtained complete relief in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment cannot be founded merely on an audit objection; the assessing authority must independently form the statutory opinion required for reopening, and in the absence of such opinion the action is without jurisdiction and amenable to writ interference despite an alternate remedy.

---