Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether notices issued under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act were valid when the assessing authority acted only on an oral communication or opinion from the income-tax department and not on material giving a reasonable basis to believe that turnover had escaped assessment.
Analysis: The condition precedent for reopening under section 21 is the existence of material on which the assessing authority can form an honest and reasonable belief that turnover has escaped assessment. The belief must rest on relevant facts or evidence and cannot be founded on mere suspicion, rumour, or the unsupported opinion of another department. The record showed no definite finding by the income-tax department before issuance of the notices, and the subsequent assessment material could not justify the earlier action. The principle that reopening cannot be initiated without relevant material was applied consistently with the authorities discussed on the meaning of "reason to believe".
Conclusion: The notices were without jurisdiction and were rightly quashed.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the impugned reopening notices were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment or reopening under a statutory provision requiring "reason to believe" is valid only when the authority has relevant and existing material, not mere suspicion or unverified opinion, to support the formation of that belief.