Fresh assessment notice under the U.P. Trade Tax Act is distinct from reassessment where a prior order was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

Where an earlier assessment is quashed for want of jurisdiction, a notice issued under Section 21(4-A) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act is treated as a notice for fresh assessment, not reassessment under Section 21(1). The Court applied the plain language of the statute and the distinction the legislature drew between "reassessment" based on escaped turnover and "fresh order of assessment" after jurisdictional defect. Because the impugned notice followed quashing of the prior assessment and did not rest on reasons to believe turnover had escaped assessment, its validity had to be tested under the fresh-assessment provision.

---

---

Issues: Whether a notice issued after the setting aside of an assessment for want of jurisdiction under Section 21(4-A) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act is a reassessment notice under Section 21(1) requiring service in accordance with Rule 77, or only a notice for fresh assessment.

Analysis: Section 21(1) deals with reassessment on the Assessing Authority having reason to believe that turnover has escaped assessment, and such proceedings require a valid jurisdictional notice. Section 21(4-A), however, speaks in clear terms of making a "fresh order of assessment" where the earlier assessment is quashed on the ground of want of jurisdiction or a like ground. Reading the provision as written, and applying the settled rule that a taxing statute must be construed strictly on its plain language, the Court held that the legislature deliberately used different expressions for reassessment and fresh assessment. The notice in question did not disclose reasons to believe escapement of turnover and was issued after the prior assessment had been quashed for jurisdictional defect; it therefore fell within the fresh assessment regime rather than reassessment.

Conclusion: The impugned notice was not a reassessment notice under Section 21(1) but a notice for fresh assessment under Section 21(4-A), so the challenge to its validity failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute expressly provides for a "fresh order of assessment" after an assessment is quashed for want of jurisdiction, the notice initiating such proceedings is to be treated as one for fresh assessment and not reassessment, and its validity is governed by that provision's plain language.

---