Judicial review and change of opinion barred reopening a concluded sales tax assessment without fresh material.

A writ petition under Article 226 remained maintainable against a statutory appellate authority because its orders were subject to High Court judicial review, and the authority's status as statutory did not exclude that jurisdiction. Reassessment under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 could not be sustained on a mere change of opinion: the original assessment had accepted consignment sales after verification of statutory forms and supporting records, while the reopening notice disclosed no fresh material, fraud, suppression, misrepresentation, or jurisdictional error. Reopening a concluded assessment on the same material was therefore impermissible, and the exemption claim remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable against the order of the statutory appellate authority; (ii) whether reassessment under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 could be sustained in the absence of new material, and merely on a different view of the same consignment-sale records.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable against the order of the statutory appellate authority.

Analysis: The appellate authority was a creature of statute under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and its orders were amenable to scrutiny by the High Court under its constitutional power of judicial review. The constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court could not be ousted merely because the appellate authority was headed by a former Supreme Court Judge. The availability of writ review over such statutory decisions was recognized as part of the High Court's supervisory role.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the High Court had jurisdiction to examine the impugned order.

Issue (ii): whether reassessment under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 could be sustained in the absence of new material, and merely on a different view of the same consignment-sale records.

Analysis: The original assessment had accepted the claim of consignment sales after verification of Form F, the agreement, sale pattials, lorry receipts, and connected records. The reopening notice did not disclose any fresh material or any finding that the earlier particulars were false, untrue, or tainted by fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, or suppression of material facts. The reasons recorded were only bald assertions based on proximity of invoices and matching quantities, which amounted to a mere change of opinion. In the absence of a jurisdictional error or legally sufficient new material, reassessment could not be used to re-open a concluded assessment.

Conclusion: Reopening of the concluded assessment was impermissible and unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate order was set aside and the assessee's claim of exemption on consignment sales remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A concluded assessment accepted after verification of statutory declarations and supporting records cannot be reopened merely on a change of opinion; reopening requires new material showing fraud, misrepresentation, suppression, or a jurisdictional error.

---