Reassessment notice must rest on fresh material; a prior decision alone cannot justify reopening without jurisdiction.

Reassessment or revision under the U.P. Sales Tax Act could not be sustained where the notices were based only on an earlier decision and not on any independent material showing escaped assessment. The Court held that jurisdiction to reopen assessment requires relevant material with a live nexus to the belief of escapement; a prior ruling rendered on different facts, especially where the dealer had produced distinguishing evidence, could not justify action by itself. On that basis, the notices and consequential proceedings were without jurisdiction, amounted to an impermissible change of opinion, and were quashed under article 226, though fresh action in accordance with law was left open if otherwise permissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether notices and consequential orders issued under section 21 and section 10-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 could be sustained when they were founded solely on an earlier decision and the petitioners asserted that they had placed material to distinguish their case.

Analysis: The jurisdiction to reopen or revise assessment under the taxing statute depended upon the existence of relevant material having a rational nexus with the belief of escaped assessment. A notice could not be upheld merely because an earlier decision existed if that decision had been rendered on the footing that no material was produced by the dealer and, therefore, did not govern a case where the dealer had adduced evidence to show a different factual and commercial position. Where the disclosed basis for the notice was only the earlier decision itself, and the assessment orders merely followed that decision without any independent material, the action amounted to an impermissible change of opinion and lacked jurisdiction. In such circumstances, requiring the petitioners to undergo the show-cause process would be futile, and the Court was justified in interfering under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The notices and the consequential reassessment or revision proceedings could not be sustained and were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were allowed, and the impugned proceedings were set aside, leaving the respondents free to proceed afresh in accordance with law if otherwise permissible.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment or revision notice under taxing law must rest on relevant material bearing a live nexus with the belief of escaped assessment, and where the notice is founded only on an inapplicable prior decision without independent material, it is without jurisdiction.

---