Turnover suppression justifies extended limitation, and omission to cite the provision in notice does not vitiate assessment absent prejudice.

Turnover suppression in returns was treated as evasion of tax, so the ordinary reassessment period gave way to the extended limitation under the taxing statute and the reassessment was not time-barred. A natural justice challenge based on omission to mention the extended-limitation provision in the show-cause notice also failed because the assessee received the notices but filed no response, and prejudice was not shown. On that basis, the assessment and appellate order were upheld and the tax demand remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment was barred by limitation or saved by the extended period available for evasion of tax. (ii) Whether omission to refer to the extended-limitation provision in the show-cause notice vitiated the assessment on the ground of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment was barred by limitation or saved by the extended period available for evasion of tax.

Analysis: The ordinary limitation period would have expired, but the record disclosed suppression of turnovers in the returns, with the omitted turnovers emerging from the available verification material. The suppression was treated as sufficient to constitute evasion of tax, attracting the extended limitation under Section 21(5) of the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Conclusion: The reassessment was not time-barred, and the extended period of limitation applied.

Issue (ii): Whether omission to refer to the extended-limitation provision in the show-cause notice vitiated the assessment on the ground of natural justice.

Analysis: All show-cause notices were received, but no response was submitted to any of them. The objection based on natural justice would arise where a party responds to the notice and is then prejudiced by reliance on an undisclosed ground. In the absence of any reply, non-mention of Section 21(5) in the notice did not cause prejudice or invalidate the assessment.

Conclusion: The assessment was not vitiated by any violation of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment and the appellate order failed, and the writ petition was dismissed, leaving the tax demand undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where turnover suppression amounts to evasion of tax, the extended limitation under the taxing statute applies, and omission to cite that provision in the show-cause notice does not vitiate the assessment absent demonstrated prejudice.

---