Reopening under sales tax law needs sufficient material; Tribunal cannot order further enquiry instead of deciding the existing record.

Proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act require the Revenue to have sufficient material showing escaped, underassessed, or wrongly dealt-with turnover before notice can validly issue. The jurisdictional belief for reopening must be supported by the material available at that stage. The Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, was required to decide the sufficiency of the existing record itself and could not direct further enquiries by the first appellate authority in the circumstances. That direction was therefore unsustainable, and the order was set aside with the appeal to be decided afresh on the existing record.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the Tribunal was justified in directing further enquiries and remitting the matter instead of deciding on the material already on record; and whether the Revenue must establish sufficient material before issuance of notice under section 21.

Analysis: Proceedings under section 21 are distinct from ordinary assessment proceedings, and the burden lies on the Revenue to show that turnover has escaped assessment, has been underassessed, or has otherwise been wrongly dealt with so as to justify reopening. The material available at the time of issuing notice must be sufficient to sustain the jurisdictional belief required for action under section 21. The Tribunal, being the final fact-finding authority, was required to decide the matter on the existing record. Instead of returning its own finding on sufficiency of material, it directed further enquiries by the first appellate authority, which was treated as impermissible in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The direction for further enquiry was unsustainable, and the revision was allowed with the Tribunal's order set aside and the appeal to be decided afresh on the existing record.

---