Change of opinion cannot justify reassessment without fresh material; reopening based on the same facts was held invalid.

Reassessment for the 2010-11 assessment year could not be initiated on a mere change of opinion where the same job-work transaction involving varnish had already been examined in the original assessment and treated as an inter-State sale taxable at 2% on the basis of Form C. The sanction for reopening disclosed no fresh material or new information, and it relied only on a different view taken in a later assessment year. On those facts, the reopening lacked the statutory foundation required to confer jurisdiction, so the reassessment proceedings were invalid and the sanction order and notice were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings could be initiated for the assessment year 2010-11 on a mere change of opinion, without any new material or information, after the very same transaction had been examined and taxed in the original assessment.

Analysis: The original assessment order showed that the assessing authority had consciously examined the job-work transaction involving varnish and had treated it as an inter-State sale taxable at 2% on the basis of Form C. The sanction order for reassessment disclosed no fresh material or information and was founded only on a different view taken in a later assessment year. In the absence of any new factual foundation, the reassessment was based on the selfsame facts and evidence and amounted only to a change of opinion. Such initiation does not satisfy the statutory requirement for reopening and cannot confer jurisdiction to reassess.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were invalid and without jurisdiction; the sanction order and reassessment notice were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment cannot be initiated merely on a change of opinion unless there is a nexus with fresh material or information justifying the reopening.

---