Reassessment cannot cure an assessing authority's own oversight where all primary facts were already disclosed to the department.

Reassessment under the Bombay Sales Tax Act was invalid where the original assessment had already been revised and the operative revisional order was in force; the Sales Tax Officer was required to proceed before the revisional authority and lacked competence to act independently. The case also did not satisfy the non-disclosure ground for reassessment because the purchase and subsequent dealings were already disclosed in the balance-sheet, ledger and journal, placing all primary facts before the assessing authority. The omission was the authority's own oversight, not concealment or an incorrect return by the assessee. The reassessment was therefore without jurisdiction, barred by limitation, and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Sales Tax Officer could initiate and complete reassessment under section 35 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 when the original assessment had already been revised under section 57; and (ii) whether the case fell within section 35(1)(b) on the ground of non-disclosure or incorrect return.

Issue (i): Whether the Sales Tax Officer could initiate and complete reassessment under section 35 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 when the original assessment had already been revised under section 57.

Analysis: The original assessment had been revised by the Assistant Commissioner before the impugned reassessment order was made. In such a situation, the second proviso to section 35 required the Sales Tax Officer to place the matter before the appropriate revisional authority rather than act on his own. The operative revised order was in force when the reassessment proceedings were initiated and completed, so the Sales Tax Officer lacked competence to pass the impugned order.

Conclusion: The reassessment order was without jurisdiction and is therefore unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the case fell within section 35(1)(b) on the ground of non-disclosure or incorrect return.

Analysis: The purchase and subsequent dealings in the ship were already reflected in the assessee's balance-sheet, ledger and journal produced before the assessing authority at the original assessment stage. The authority had all primary facts before it and could have made the necessary enquiry then. The failure to levy purchase tax was thus an omission on the part of the assessing authority and not a case of concealment or knowingly furnishing incorrect returns by the assessee. The reassessment was also beyond the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The case did not fall within section 35(1)(b), and the reassessment was barred.

Final Conclusion: The impugned reassessment and the appellate confirmation could not be sustained, and the assessee succeeded on both jurisdiction and merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where all primary facts were before the assessing authority and a prior revisional order was operative, reassessment under section 35 could not be used to cure the authority's own oversight or to bypass the statutory requirement of proceeding before the revisional authority.

---