Reassessment information may come from the original record, but not from a mere change of opinion on the same material.

Information for reopening reassessment under section 18(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act need not come from an external source; it may arise from the original assessment record if the relevant facts or legal implications are later realised. A mere change of opinion, second thoughts, or fresh reconsideration of the same material without new information does not confer jurisdiction to reopen a completed assessment. The earlier Division Bench view insisting on an outside source of information was held inconsistent with binding precedent and overruled. The matter was remitted for decision on merits in light of these principles.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the information required for reopening reassessment under section 18(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 must necessarily come from a source external to the original record; (ii) whether a mere change of opinion or second thoughts on the same material can amount to information for reassessment; (iii) whether the earlier Division Bench view requiring an external source of information correctly stated the law.

Issue (i): Whether the information required for reopening reassessment under section 18(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 must necessarily come from a source external to the original record.

Analysis: The phrase "information which has come into his possession" was construed according to its ordinary meaning, with no statutory indication that the source must be outside the original assessment record. The provision was treated as closely similar in material part to section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Binding precedents held that information may arise from the record itself where the relevant facts or legal implications are realised after the original assessment.

Conclusion: The requirement of an external or extraneous source was rejected; information under section 18(1) may also emerge from the original record.

Issue (ii): Whether a mere change of opinion or second thoughts on the same material can amount to information for reassessment.

Analysis: The later authorities were read as drawing a clear distinction between fresh information and a reassessment based only on reconsideration of the same material. A mere reassessment of the same facts without any new information, or an error noticed only on renewed reflection over identical material, was held insufficient to confer jurisdiction to reopen a completed assessment.

Conclusion: Mere change of opinion or second thoughts on the same materials do not constitute information under section 18(1).

Issue (iii): Whether the earlier Division Bench view requiring an external source of information correctly stated the law.

Analysis: The earlier view was found to have relied upon an isolated observation in one Supreme Court decision while overlooking later and controlling authority, especially the Constitution Bench ruling which expressly approved the proposition that information may be gathered from the original record. The earlier Division Bench ruling was therefore held inconsistent with the binding precedent.

Conclusion: The earlier Division Bench view was overruled and held to be incorrect in law.

Final Conclusion: The legal principles governing reassessment under section 18(1) were settled in favour of permitting reliance on information derived from the original record, while excluding reassessment based only on a reappraisal of the same material; the matters were therefore sent back for decision on merits in the light of these conclusions.

Ratio Decidendi: For reassessment, "information" may originate from the original record itself, but it must be distinct from a mere change of opinion on the same material.

---