Prima facie sanction for reassessment cannot be quashed in writ proceedings when classification merits remain open in reassessment.

Prima facie sanction under section 29(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was treated as sufficient to authorise reassessment where the Commissioner recorded satisfaction that the disputed tractor hood item may have been wrongly classified. The HC declined to test the correctness of that classification at the writ stage because the proviso dispenses with a pre-decisional hearing and the merits are to be examined by the assessing authority in reassessment. The sanction and reassessment notice were therefore not quashed, and the classification dispute was left for determination in the reassessment proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sanction granted for reopening the assessment under section 29(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was jurisdiction or illegal, and whether the writ court should interfere at the stage of reassessment notice.

Analysis: The sanction order recorded prima facie satisfaction that tractor hood was an accessory and not an attachment or part covered by the relevant entry, and therefore the item may not have been taxable at 4% as claimed. Section 29(7) permits authorisation for reassessment on the Commissioner's satisfaction, even if it involves a change of opinion, and the proviso dispenses with a pre-decisional hearing. The Court declined to examine the correctness of that prima facie view in writ jurisdiction because the reassessment notice had been issued and the merits were to be considered by the assessing authority.

Conclusion: The sanction for reassessment was upheld and the writ petitions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Commissioner records prima facie satisfaction under section 29(7), the reassessment process cannot be quashed in writ proceedings merely because the assessee disputes the classification on merits; the substantive issue is to be decided in reassessment.

---