Limitation and reason to believe requirements invalidate audit assessment and reassessment notices under value added tax law.

Audit assessment under the Assam Value Added Tax Act was invalid because it was initiated beyond the statutory limitation period applicable to self-assessed returns. Reassessment was also unsustainable because the notice did not disclose the jurisdictional preconditions for escape assessment or a bona fide reason to believe that turnover had escaped assessment or been under-assessed. The absence of those statutory foundations rendered the notice and consequential reassessment without jurisdiction, and the assessment orders and demand notices were set aside, with liberty to proceed afresh only in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the audit assessment initiated under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was barred by limitation; (ii) Whether the notice and consequent reassessment under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 were valid when the requisite preconditions and reasons to believe were not disclosed.

Issue (i): Whether the audit assessment initiated under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The returns were treated as self-assessed and deemed to have been completed under the self-assessment scheme. The statutory bar under the limitation provision applied to audit assessment proceedings under the Act, and the materials showed that the proposed audit assessment for the relevant years had not been initiated within the permissible period.

Conclusion: The audit assessment was barred by limitation and was invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice and consequent reassessment under the Assam Value Added Tax Act, 2003 were valid when the requisite preconditions and reasons to believe were not disclosed.

Analysis: Reassessment under the escape-assessment provision could be exercised only after a prior assessment and only where the prescribed authority had reason to believe that turnover had escaped assessment or been under-assessed. The notice, however, disclosed only an audit assessment and did not set out the statutory preconditions for reassessment. The absence of the necessary jurisdictional foundation rendered the notice and the resulting reassessment unsustainable.

Conclusion: The notice and the reassessment were invalid for want of jurisdictional preconditions and disclosure of reason to believe.

Final Conclusion: The assessment orders and consequential demand notices were set aside, and the writ petition succeeded, while leaving it open to the authorities to proceed afresh only in accordance with law and within the statutory prerequisites.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment or escape-assessment notice is valid only if the statute's jurisdictional conditions are satisfied and the authority discloses a bona fide reason to believe supported by material; absent those conditions, the proceeding is unsustainable, and limitation continues to apply to the statutory regime governing the assessment action.

---