Reassessment notice invalid without disclosure of escaped turnover; a lower-rate allegation alone does not confer jurisdiction.

Reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1949 requires the authority to identify escaped turnover on relevant material; a bare allegation that tax was assessed at a lower rate is insufficient and does not confer jurisdiction. Here, the notice did not disclose any escaped turnover, and the attempt to justify reopening was inconsistent with the existing assessment position on dry cell batteries. The notice was therefore held illegal and without jurisdiction, and the reassessment proceeding was quashed with costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1949 for reopening the assessment was valid when it did not disclose any escaped turnover and was founded only on the allegation that tax had been assessed at a lower rate.

Analysis: The notice was challenged as lacking jurisdiction because neither the notice nor the respondent's subsequent response specified any turnover that had escaped assessment. The record showed that dry cell batteries had already been assessed at 7 per cent under section 3A(2A) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1949, and the later attempt to justify the notice on the basis of a supposed lower rate was inconsistent with the materials and the earlier legal position governing the commodity. In the absence of any disclosed escaped turnover, the precondition for action under section 21 was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The notice under section 21 was illegal, without jurisdiction, and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the impugned reassessment notice was set aside, with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment under section 21 cannot be sustained unless the authority identifies an escaped turnover on the basis of relevant material; a mere allegation of assessment at a lower rate, without disclosure of escaped turnover, does not confer jurisdiction.

---