Broad reassessment power under section 21 covers omitted turnover, remand-based reassessment, and no fresh information requirement.

Section 21 was construed broadly to permit reassessment of turnover that had escaped assessment for any reason, including inadvertent omission despite disclosure in the return; the reassessment was therefore valid. The retrospective second proviso to section 21, inserted by the 1956 amendment, removed the limitation bar where the assessment was made to give effect to a finding or direction in an order under sections 9, 10 or 11, so the remand-based fresh assessment was not time-barred. Section 21 also did not require fresh information as a precondition for reassessment, and the objection on that ground failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether turnover omitted from assessment despite disclosure in the return could be assessed as escaped assessment under section 21; (ii) whether a fresh assessment made after remand was barred by limitation under section 21; (iii) whether assessment under section 21 required fresh information.

Issue (i): whether turnover omitted from assessment despite disclosure in the return could be assessed as escaped assessment under section 21.

Analysis: Section 21 empowered the assessing authority to proceed where any part of the turnover had escaped assessment for any reason. The provision was wide enough to cover an omission resulting from inadvertence, and its operation was not confined to cases of concealment in the return.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee. The turnover was liable to be assessed under section 21 as escaped assessment.

Issue (ii): whether a fresh assessment made after remand was barred by limitation under section 21.

Analysis: The second proviso to section 21, as substituted by section 15 of the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1956 with retrospective effect, excluded the limitation bar where the assessment was made in consequence of, or to give effect to, a finding or direction in an order under section 9, 10 or 11. The assessment in question was made pursuant to a remand direction and therefore fell within that proviso.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee. The fresh assessment was not barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): whether assessment under section 21 required fresh information.

Analysis: The legal requirement under section 21 was not that reassessment could be made only on fresh information. The provision itself did not impose such a condition, and the reasons recorded in revision were accepted as correct.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the assessee. Fresh information was not a precondition for assessment under section 21.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the revenue, upholding the reassessment under section 21 and rejecting all three objections raised by the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment provision expressed in wide terms may cover turnover omitted from assessment for any reason, and a retrospective saving provision can validate a remand-based reassessment notwithstanding the original limitation period.

---