Change of opinion cannot sustain reassessment; disputed tax threshold also governs Tribunal bench composition.

A sales tax appeal was properly heard by a single-Member Bench because the relevant criterion was the amount of disputed tax, not the total assessment, and the disputed sum was below the statutory threshold. Reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act required objective material supporting a bona fide reason to believe that turnover had escaped assessment or been under-assessed; where the original record already disclosed the relevant facts and the later notice rested only on a change of opinion on the same material, jurisdiction was not made out. The original annulment of reassessment was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the sales tax appeal before the Tribunal was required to be heard by a two-Member Bench because the tax in dispute exceeded the statutory limit; (ii) whether reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was valid when it was founded only on a later change of opinion and not on any fresh objective material.

Issue (i): whether the sales tax appeal before the Tribunal was required to be heard by a two-Member Bench because the tax in dispute exceeded the statutory limit.

Analysis: The governing provision required a two-Member Bench only where the amount of tax in dispute exceeded ten thousand rupees. The relevant figure was the disputed tax and not the total tax involved in the assessment order. On the facts, the assessee did not dispute the admitted portion of liability, and after excluding the uncontested tax, the amount actually in dispute was below the statutory threshold.

Conclusion: The appeal was rightly heard by a single Member Bench, and the Tribunal's order was not vitiated on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was valid when it was founded only on a later change of opinion and not on any fresh objective material.

Analysis: Section 21 permits reassessment only where the assessing authority has reason to believe, on some rational and objective basis, that turnover has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed. The record showed that the assessee had disclosed the manufacturing process, including the use of soda-bi-carb, at the original assessment stage. The officer had then considered the material and taxed the turnover at a lower rate. The later reassessment was initiated only because the officer took a different view on the same facts. That amounted to a change of opinion, which by itself cannot confer jurisdiction under section 21.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid and the annulment of the reassessment was correct.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because neither the Tribunal's composition nor the invalidation of reassessment disclosed any error of law, and the assessee retained the benefit of the original appellate decision.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act can be sustained only on objective material giving rise to a bona fide reason to believe that turnover escaped assessment; a mere change of opinion on the same facts does not confer jurisdiction.

---