Reassessment requires fresh material, not mere reappraisal of existing records or second thoughts during original assessment.

Reassessment under section 21(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 cannot be sustained where it is based only on re-examination of the same records used in the original assessment. The provision was treated as analogous to reassessment powers under sales tax law and section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, so the decisive requirement is fresh material dehors the record, not mere second thoughts or lack of diligence. The availability of revisional power under section 32 was noted as a separate safeguard against erroneous assessment. On that basis, reassessment on the same material was held unsustainable and the impugned reassessment was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment under section 21(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 could be sustained when it was based only on re-examination of the same records already available at the time of the original assessment and not on any fresh material.

Analysis: Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 provides for returns, self-assessment and scrutiny of returns, while section 21(4) permits assessment on detailed scrutiny and section 21(6) permits reassessment where an earlier assessment understates the correct tax liability. The Court held that the earlier assessment was made under section 21(4), and that the power under section 21(6) is akin to the reassessment power considered under the corresponding sales tax provisions and under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Applying the settled principle that reassessment cannot rest on mere second thoughts or lack of diligence when the material was already on record, the Court held that reassessment requires material dehors the record. The availability of revisional power under section 32 was also noted as a separate safeguard against erroneous assessments.

Conclusion: Reassessment under section 21(6) could not be invoked on the same material already available for the original assessment, and the reassessment order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned reassessment was quashed and the writ petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment cannot be founded merely on reappraisal of existing material or lack of diligence in the original assessment; it requires fresh material not already on the record.

---