Reassessment requires fresh information, not change of opinion, when reopening assessments under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.

Reassessment under section 12-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act can be initiated only on fresh information not available when the original assessment was made. Where the inspection report was received after the 1988-89 assessment order, the material constituted fresh information and reopening was upheld. Where the same inspection report was already in the authority's possession before the 1989-90 assessment order, reopening on that material amounted only to a change of opinion and was invalid. The proceedings were therefore sustained for one assessment year and quashed for the other.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether reassessment proceedings under section 12-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 could be initiated for the assessment year 1988-89 on the basis of inspection material not available when the original assessment was made; (ii) whether reassessment proceedings under section 12-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 could be initiated for the assessment year 1989-90 when the relevant inspection report was already available to the authority before the assessment order.

Issue (i): whether reassessment proceedings under section 12-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 could be initiated for the assessment year 1988-89 on the basis of inspection material not available when the original assessment was made.

Analysis: The basis for reopening was an inspection report received after the assessment order for 1988-89 had been made. Since this material was not available at the time of the original assessment, the authority had fresh information on which to proceed with reassessment.

Conclusion: Reopening for the assessment year 1988-89 was justified and was not interfered with.

Issue (ii): whether reassessment proceedings under section 12-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 could be initiated for the assessment year 1989-90 when the relevant inspection report was already available to the authority before the assessment order.

Analysis: For 1989-90, the inspection report was already in the authority's possession before the assessment order was passed. Initiating proceedings on that very material amounted only to a change of opinion and not to reopening on fresh material.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 1989-90 were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only in part, as reopening was sustained for one assessment year but invalidated for the other.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment can be initiated only on fresh information not available at the time of the original assessment, and not merely on a change of opinion based on material already in the authority's possession.

---