Reassessment for non-application of mind upheld where original exemption ignored purchase-tax liability under the sales tax law.

Reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was treated as valid where the original assessment had granted exemption under section 4-B without addressing purchase-tax liability. The governing distinction was that a reopening is barred when the earlier order reflects a conscious view on the point, but it is permissible when the exemption was allowed through non-application of mind and escaped turnover is discovered later. The Tribunal's factual finding that the notification dated 1 June 1963 did not exempt purchases, and that the original allowance of exemption was not based on a considered view, was treated as binding. On that basis, the reassessment was upheld and the objection based on change of opinion failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could be sustained where the original assessment was alleged to have proceeded on a change of opinion rather than on non-application of mind.

Analysis: The assessee's exemption claim under section 4-B, based on the notification dated 1 June 1963, had been accepted in the original assessments. The reassessment was initiated on the ground that the notification covered sales only and not purchases. The governing distinction was whether the original assessment order reflected an actual consideration of taxability on purchases. If the assessing authority had applied its mind and then taken a view, reopening would amount to a change of opinion. If, however, the exemption had been granted without addressing the question of purchase-tax liability, the case would be one of non-application of mind and the escaped turnover could validly be reassessed. The Tribunal had recorded a categorical factual finding that the notification did not allow exemption on purchases and that granting exemption in the circumstances amounted to non-application of mind, not change of opinion. That finding was treated as binding.

Conclusion: Reassessment under section 21 was valid and the objection based on change of opinion failed.

Final Conclusion: The revision was dismissed, and the reassessment for the years in dispute was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment is permissible where escaped turnover arose from non-application of mind in the original assessment, but not where the earlier order was the product of a conscious opinion on the point.

---