Reassessment power based on prima facie material upheld despite objections to seized records and witness statements.

Reassessment under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was treated as justified where the authority had prima facie material showing that reassessment was just and expedient. The High Court accepted that such power could be invoked even beyond the normal limitation period and despite a change of opinion, because the record included materials from an excise raid, seizure of records suggesting unrecorded sales, and a director's statement. Objections based on denial of transactions, non-supply of documents, and refusal of cross-examination were not enough to negate the material at that stage, while challenges to the reliability of the seized documents and statements were left for the reassessment proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether permission granted for reassessment under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was justified on the materials before the authority.

Analysis: The reassessment power under Section 21(2) could be exercised where the authority had material leading to satisfaction that reassessment was just and expedient, even beyond the normal limitation period and even if it involved a change of opinion. The record disclosed materials from an excise raid, seizure of records indicating sales allegedly not reflected in the dealers' accounts, and a statement of a director. The challenge based on denial of transactions, non-supply of documents, and refusal of cross-examination was not treated as sufficient to displace the existence of prima facie material at this stage. The Court left open the assessees' contentions on the reliability and effect of the seized documents and statements for examination in reassessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The permission for reassessment was upheld and no interference was warranted.

---