Reassessment law: change of opinion bars reopening, but escaped turnover taxed at a lower rate can justify reassessment.

Reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act requires reason to believe that turnover escaped assessment, was under-assessed, or suffered tax at a lower rate; it cannot be used for a mere change of opinion on an issue already examined. On the construction-work turnover, reopening was treated as impermissible because it rested only on a second thought. For M.S. tubes and tabular sheds, the goods were not covered by the exhaustive declaration of declared goods in section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, so the lower-rate assessment justified reassessment as escaped turnover. The result was that reopening failed for construction work but was upheld for those goods.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was barred as a mere change of opinion in respect of the turnover of construction work, M.S. tubes and tabular sheds, and whether M.S. tubes and tabular sheds were declared goods under section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: Action under section 21 requires reason to believe that turnover has escaped assessment, has been under-assessed, or tax has been levied at a lower rate, or that an exemption has been wrongly allowed. A mere second thought on an issue already considered cannot justify reassessment. On the facts, the turnover from construction work was not suitable for reopening because the reassessment there would amount only to a change of opinion. For M.S. tubes and tabular sheds, however, the original assessment had treated them as declared goods liable to tax at 3 per cent, but they were not covered by the exhaustive enumeration in section 14(iv) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The clause on iron and steel enumerates specific categories, and the goods in question did not fall within them. The reassessment therefore arose from escapement due to application of a lower rate of tax, not from a mere change of opinion.

Conclusion: Reassessment under section 21 was invalid as to the construction-work turnover, but valid as to the turnover of M.S. tubes and tabular sheds. The finding against reopening on those goods was set aside in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent that the reassessment on M.S. tubes and tabular sheds was upheld, while the challenge regarding construction-work turnover was not accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment is permissible where turnover has escaped assessment because tax was charged at a lower rate on goods not covered by the statutory declaration of declared goods, but it cannot be invoked for a mere change of opinion on an issue already considered.

---