Change of opinion cannot justify reassessment where the original assessment already examined the same stock transfer material.

Reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 requires a genuine reason to believe that turnover has escaped assessment or been under-assessed. Where the original assessment had already examined the same stock transfer agreements, documents and related records, and accepted the transfers as stock transfers, a later notice issued on no fresh material amounts only to a change of opinion. The court held that a renewed attempt to re-examine the same facts cannot supply the statutory basis for reopening, and the notice was therefore invalid and quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 reopening an assessment, after the original assessment had already examined the same stock transfer material, was valid or was vitiated as a mere change of opinion.

Analysis: Section 21 permits reassessment only where the assessing authority has reason to believe that turnover has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed. The original assessment had already scrutinised the agreements, stock transfer documents, and related records, and had accepted the transfers as stock transfers. The impugned notice disclosed no fresh material for the relevant year. The reasons later supplied showed only a renewed attempt to re-examine the same facts and were in substance no more than a second thought on the earlier assessment. The settled rule, reflected in the cited sales tax and income-tax decisions, is that reassessment cannot be founded merely on a change of opinion when the primary facts were already considered in the original assessment.

Conclusion: The notice under section 21 was invalid as it was based only on a change of opinion, and it was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment is impermissible when the assessing authority seeks to reopen an assessment on the same material already considered earlier, without any fresh factual basis, because a mere change of opinion does not constitute reason to believe.

---