KAN SINGH, J.—We have before us a group of 21 writ petitions which raise common questions of law about the validity of notices issued by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer u/sec. 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), against the several petitioners who were all dealers registered under the Act and had been assessed to sales tax prior to the issuing of these notices. The writ petitions can conveniently be disposed of together.

2. The writ petitions however fall under two categories. Writ petition No. 145 of 1965 is. by National Clinic which is a firm consisting of two doctors who supply loose medicines to their patients and also take skiagram at the X-Ray plant which they maintain. The notice issued to them states that the whole or part of their business escaped assessment and has been assessed at too low a rate for the reason that in their returns they had only shown the sales of X-Ray films but had not included their own charges for taking the photographs. In consequence, it was mentioned in the n6tice that the charges of taking X-Ray photos were to be brought to tax. The other petitioners are all dealers of Pali who carry on business in ivory, ivory articles and bangles. Their case is that for the years 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59 they had filed their returns and had shown their total turn-over of business therein.........They claimed exemption in respect of sale of bangles made of lac, Topali (coconut), Xylonite or cateline tubes to which they were entitled by virtue of their exemption certificates. The Sales Tax Officer assessed them to tax as per their returns. By the impugned notices under Section 12 of the Act the Commercial Taxes Officer, Pali seeks to re-assess them on the ground that the sales of bangles claimed as exempted were not of the materials as were covered by the exemption certificate. In the circumstances the Commercial Taxes Officer thought that the sale of the articles which were taxable had escaped the levy of tax. Learned counsel for the petitioners Shri C. N. Lodha has contended that the Commercial Taxes Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices as all the material facts were placed before the taxation authority and he having taxed them could not re-open those assessments in exercise of his powers under Section 12 of the Act, merely because he has come to hold a different opinion. Learned counsel maintains that a mere change of opinion by the officer cannot clothe him with the power to re-open the assessment once made. As the fate of the cases turns on a proper interpretation of Section 12 of the Act and the language of the notices of re-assessment we will re-produce them below:

"12. Assessment of tax and levy of exemption fee or registration fees incorrectly assessed -If for any reason the whole or any part of the business of a dealer has escaped assessment to the tax, or if the registration fee or exemption fee has escaped levy or has been assessed at too low a rate in any year, the assessing authority at any time within a period of eight years next succeeding that to which the tax or the registration fee or the exemption fee relates, or, if such assessment has been a subject matter of proceedings in appeal or revision under this Act, within a period of eight years next succeeding the date of termination of such proceedings, may serve on the dealer liable to pay the tax in respect of such business or such registration fee or exemption fee from a notice in the prescribed form and may proceed to assess or re-assess the amount of the tax or levy the correct amount of registration fee or exemption fee from such dealer. Provided that if a Deputy Commissioner (inspection) or a Deputy Commissioner (Administration) has reason to believe that the whole or any part of the business of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax or has been underassessed or has been assessed at too low a rate, he may at any time subject to the time limit specified above

Click Here to Read the rest of this document