Reassessment requires new information, and maize in Schedule B was outside purchase tax under the sales tax statute.

A reassessment under Section 15 of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 cannot rest on mere later awareness of a notification already forming part of the statutory regime; such awareness is not new or previously undisclosed information, so reopening of the original assessment was unlawful. Maize was also held exempt from purchase tax under Section 5-A read with Schedule B because that provision applies only to goods not specified in Schedule B, and maize was included there and purchased from agriculturists. The assessment therefore could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an assessment could be reopened under Section 15 of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 in the absence of new or previously undisclosed information, and whether a later notice of a notification could constitute such information. (ii) Whether maize was exempt from purchase tax under Section 5-A of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 read with Schedule B.

Issue (i): Whether an assessment could be reopened under Section 15 of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 in the absence of new or previously undisclosed information, and whether a later notice of a notification could constitute such information.

Analysis: A notification issued under the Act forms part of the statutory regime, and ignorance of such notification at the time of original assessment cannot be equated with absence of information. Subsequent awareness of a notification already having legal force does not amount to new definite information justifying reassessment under Section 15(1).

Conclusion: Reopening of the original assessment was not lawful and the issue was answered against the revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether maize was exempt from purchase tax under Section 5-A of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 read with Schedule B.

Analysis: Section 5-A applies only to goods other than those specified in Schedule B. Maize was included in Schedule B and had been purchased from agriculturists. Goods falling within Schedule B were not liable to purchase tax under Section 5-A.

Conclusion: Maize was exempt from purchase tax and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference failed and the assessment could not be sustained, as the reopening was unauthorized and the commodity in question was outside the purchase-tax net.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment cannot be founded on mere later discovery of a notification already forming part of the law, and purchase tax under Section 5-A is confined to goods not specified in Schedule B.

---