Reassessment cannot rest on mere change of opinion; fresh material is required to justify reopening under trade tax law.

Reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 cannot be founded on the same material already examined in the original assessment merely because the assessing authority later adopts a different view; a valid reopening requires fresh, relevant material giving a rational basis to believe turnover has escaped assessment, and a mere change of opinion is impermissible. Approval under the proviso to section 21(2) requires jurisdictional satisfaction on the recorded reasons and the assessee's reply, but it cannot cure a reopening that is otherwise unsustainable for want of fresh material. The notices and reassessment proceedings were therefore held invalid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 could be initiated on the basis of the same material considered in the original assessment, merely by changing the earlier view; (ii) whether the approval granted under the proviso to section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was valid.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 could be initiated on the basis of the same material considered in the original assessment, merely by changing the earlier view.

Analysis: The original assessment orders had already examined the disputed items and the treatment of freight and had recorded findings on the existing material. No fresh material or new information was shown to have come to the notice of the assessing authority after the original assessments. The attempted reopening rested on the same material and on a different view of taxability, which amounted to a mere change of opinion. Reassessment under section 21 requires a rational basis for the belief that turnover has escaped assessment, and such belief cannot be founded on conjecture or on reappraisal of the same facts already considered.

Conclusion: Reassessment on the basis of mere change of opinion was impermissible and the notices were invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the approval granted under the proviso to section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was valid.

Analysis: The approving authority was required to be satisfied that it was just and expedient to authorize reassessment beyond limitation on the basis of the reasons recorded by the assessing authority and the assessee's reply. The record showed consideration of the recorded reasons and the reply before grant of approval. The authority was not required to adjudicate the reassessment dispute in detail, but only to apply its mind and reach jurisdictional satisfaction. However, since the underlying reopening itself was based on no fresh material and only on a change of opinion, the approval could not sustain the reassessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The approval did not validate the reassessment proceedings in the circumstances of the case.

Final Conclusion: The reopening of assessment was held to be unsustainable because it was founded on a mere change of opinion without fresh material, and the consequential notices and proceedings were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment cannot be initiated where the original assessment has already considered the relevant material and the proposed reopening rests only on a subsequent change of opinion without any fresh, relevant material bearing on escaped assessment.

---