The HC ruled that Section 25A of the KVAT Act, despite its...

The HC ruled that Section 25A of the KVAT Act, despite its non-obstante clause, merely provides an additional ground for reassessment and does not override the limitation period under Section 25(1). When the Assessing Officer receives a CAG objection, they must determine its lawfulness after giving the dealer an opportunity to be heard. If satisfied, reassessment must still follow the statutory procedure under Section 25(1), including adherence to limitation periods. The Revenue cannot circumvent time-barred assessments by initiating reassessment based on subsequent CAG reports. The court dismissed the State's O.T. Revisions and Writ Appeal, affirming that procedural due process in taxation cannot be inferred but must be explicitly provided in statute.