Delegated reassessment powers include attached conditions precedent; a void assessment against a non-existent person cannot block reassessment.

A delegated reassessment power carried with it the conditions precedent inseparably attached to that power, so the delegate could act on its own satisfaction under section 19(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The earlier assessment was made against a non-existent person and was therefore a nullity; such a void assessment could not bar reassessment, and cancellation of that order was not a prerequisite. On that basis, the reassessment order was upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner's satisfaction under section 19(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 was a delegable condition precedent to reassessment; (ii) Whether the reassessment was barred because the earlier assessment was made in the name of a non-existent person.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner's satisfaction under section 19(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 was a delegable condition precedent to reassessment.

Analysis: The requirement that the Commissioner be satisfied that sales had escaped assessment was treated not as an independent duty separable from the reassessment power, but as a condition attached to the exercise of that power. Once the power to reassess was delegated under section 30, the conditions precedent inseparably connected with that power also passed to the delegate. The number of preconditions did not alter their character as conditions of exercise rather than separately delegable duties.

Conclusion: The Assistant Commissioner could validly exercise the reassessment power on his own satisfaction; the delegation was effective and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment was barred because the earlier assessment was made in the name of a non-existent person.

Analysis: The earlier assessment in the name of Gajanand Satyanarayan was found, as a matter of fact, to have been made against a non-existent person. An assessment against a non-existent person was treated as a nullity and could not prevent reassessment of the appellant. The validity of the reassessment did not depend on cancellation of that void assessment order.

Conclusion: The reassessment was not barred by the earlier void assessment; the objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment order was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory power is delegated, the conditions precedent inseparably attached to its exercise pass with the delegation; an assessment made against a non-existent person is a nullity and cannot bar reassessment.

---