Okay, here's a structured summary of a hypothetical case based on the provided information regarding Section 23(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Since the actual case details are missing, this is a sample based on a possible scenario.

Short Summary

This case concerns the validity of a reassessment order issued under Section 23(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The petitioner challenged the reassessment, arguing it was time-barred and lacked proper justification. The court upheld the reassessment, finding sufficient grounds for the assessing officer to believe there was an underassessment due to the suppression of turnover.

Facts

The petitioner, a dealer registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, was initially assessed for the assessment year 2010-2011. Subsequently, based on information received from the Intelligence Wing of the Commercial Taxes Department indicating a significant discrepancy in the declared turnover, the assessing officer initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 23(4) of the Act. The petitioner contested the reassessment, claiming it was initiated after the prescribed limitation period and without adequate justification for believing there was an underassessment.

Issues

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 23(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, were validly initiated within the prescribed time limit.
2. Whether the assessing officer had sufficient reason to believe that the petitioner's turnover had been underassessed, justifying the reassessment.

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner argued that:

1. The reassessment notice was issued beyond the permissible time limit stipulated under Section 23(4) of the Act.
2. The information received from the Intelligence Wing was vague and did not constitute sufficient reason to believe that there was an underassessment.
3. The reassessment was based on mere suspicion and not on concrete evidence of suppression of turnover.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondent (State) argued that:

1. The reassessment notice was issued within the prescribed time limit, calculated from the date of the original assessment order.
2. The information received from the Intelligence Wing, indicating a substantial difference between the declared and actual turnover, constituted sufficient reason to believe that there was an underassessment.
3. The assessing officer had applied his mind to the information and reasonably concluded that reassessment was necessary to protect the revenue.

Court's Reasoning

The court held that the reassessment was valid. It reasoned that:

1. The reassessment notice was issued within the permissible time frame as per the provisions of Section 23(4).
2. The information from the Intelligence Wing, even if not conclusive proof of suppression, provided a reasonable basis for the assessing officer to believe that there was an underassessment. The court emphasized that the "reason to believe" standard is lower than "proof beyond reasonable doubt."
3. The court found no evidence of mala fides or arbitrary exercise of power by the assessing officer.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the petitioner's challenge and upheld the reassessment order issued under Section 23(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The petitioner was directed to comply with the reassessment order.