Change of opinion cannot justify reassessment without fresh material under trade tax reopening principles.

Reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 requires fresh, relevant material giving rise to a bona fide reason to believe that turnover has escaped assessment. Where the original assessment has already examined and allowed the claim on merits, reopening on the same material, without new information, amounts to a mere change of opinion. The court applied the settled jurisdictional test that suspicion or a second view of the same facts is insufficient, and held that reassessment initiated without fresh material lacked legal basis; the notice and approval order were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 could be sustained when the original assessment had examined the claim on merits and the reopening was founded on the same material without fresh information.

Analysis: The original assessment order showed that the disputed loss claim had been thoroughly scrutinised and allowed. Reopening was sought only on the view that the claim was wrongly allowed and that rule 44(b) applied, but no fresh material was disclosed in the proposal or the approval order. The governing test under section 21 required the assessing authority to have reason to believe, based on relevant material having a rational nexus with escaped turnover; mere suspicion or a second view on the same facts was insufficient. On the facts, the court found that the initiation of reassessment was founded on a mere change of opinion and not on any new material justifying belief of escaped assessment.

Conclusion: The reassessment notice and the approval order were unsustainable and were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Reopening of assessment cannot be justified on a mere reappraisal of the same record after the original issue has been considered and decided on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 requires fresh and relevant material giving rise to a bona fide reason to believe that turnover has escaped assessment; a mere change of opinion on the same material does not confer jurisdiction.

---