Reassessment sanction requires application of mind to the dealer's decisive objection and supporting material before reopening proceeds.

A sanction for reassessment under section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act is invalid unless the authority applies its mind to the notice, the dealer's reply, and the decisive objection raised in defence. Where the dealer specifically asserted that it was neither manufacturer nor importer and therefore not liable at the taxable point, the approval could not be granted mechanically without addressing that core contention and the supporting material. If the documents relied on were not confronted to the dealer for explanation, the reopening approval is unsustainable and the reassessment based on it cannot stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sanction granted under section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for reopening the assessments was valid when the dealer's objection that it was neither manufacturer nor importer, and that the goods were taxable only at the point of manufacturer or importer, was not expressly considered.

Analysis: The sanctioning authority was required to record reasons showing application of mind to the notice and to the reply filed by the dealer before authorising reassessment under section 21(2). The impugned orders noted the notice, the reply and certain factual assertions, but did not deal with the petitioner's core objection regarding absence of tax liability in its hands. The material on record also showed that the documents said to be absent were not confronted to the petitioner with an opportunity to explain or produce them. In the circumstances, the approval for reopening was treated as having been granted without due consideration of the decisive objection raised in reply.

Conclusion: The sanction under section 21(2) was unsustainable and the reassessment proceedings based on it could not be maintained.

Final Conclusion: The impugned approval and consequential notice were quashed, and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration in accordance with law and the governing precedent.

Ratio Decidendi: A sanction for reassessment must reflect application of mind to the objection and material placed in reply; a mechanical approval unsupported by reasons considering the decisive defence is invalid.

---