Reassessment requires a prior assessment order, and binding precedent can justify bypassing an alternative remedy.

Writ petitions were maintainable despite a statutory reference remedy because the legal issue was already settled by binding precedent, making relegation to the alternative remedy unnecessary. Reassessment under the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act could not be initiated without a prior assessment order under the statutory scheme, since Section 22(1) presupposes an assessment under Section 21(1). In the absence of such an order, the reassessment had no legal foundation and the consequential appellate and tribunal orders were unsustainable. The reassessment action was therefore quashed and the challenge succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were not maintainable in view of the statutory alternative remedy of reference under Section 55 of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005. (ii) Whether reassessment under Section 22(1) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 could be initiated in the absence of an earlier assessment order as contemplated by Section 21(1) of that Act.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were not maintainable in view of the statutory alternative remedy of reference under Section 55 of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Analysis: The issue was already covered by binding Division Bench decisions on the same legal question. Since the controversy stood squarely answered in those decisions, and the State did not dispute the applicability of that legal position, relegating the petitioner to the reference remedy was held to be unwarranted in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were held maintainable and the objection based on alternative remedy was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether reassessment under Section 22(1) of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 could be initiated in the absence of an earlier assessment order as contemplated by Section 21(1) of that Act.

Analysis: Reassessment power under Section 22(1) presupposes the existence of an assessment order under Section 21(1). In the absence of such an assessment order, the foundation for reopening or reassessment was lacking, and the reassessment proceedings could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings and the consequential appellate and tribunal orders were held unsustainable and were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the reassessment action failed for want of a valid prior assessment order, and the connected orders were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment cannot be initiated unless there exists a prior assessment order under the statutory scheme, and a writ court need not relegate a party to an alternative remedy where the governing legal issue is already conclusively settled by binding precedent.

---