Accepted Form F and a non-speaking sanction order defeated reopening, as technical omission could not justify reassessment.

Form F, once accepted, was treated as establishing stock transfer under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the Court held that the omission to disclose certain out-of-State branch names in the registration form was only a technical defect. That omission did not justify treating the movement as an inter-State sale or invoking reassessment under section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, especially where the registration certificate had not been cancelled and there was no allegation of fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, or suppression of material facts. The sanction order was also invalid because it was non-speaking and showed no application of mind to the assessee's objections, so the reassessment notice was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sanction granted to reopen the assessment was valid when the assessee had produced Form F under section 6-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, but had not disclosed the names of certain out-of-State branches in the registration form, and whether the impugned sanction order could be sustained when it was non-speaking.

Analysis: Form F, once accepted, establishes stock transfer for the purposes of section 6-A and, on the facts of this case, the Court treated the consequence as an irrebuttable presumption in favour of the assessee. The non-disclosure of branch names in the registration application was held to be only a technical omission and not a ground by itself to treat the transfer as an inter-State sale or to invoke reassessment under section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The Court further held that the registration certificate was neither cancelled nor shown to be liable to cancellation for any statutory reason, and there was no allegation of fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, or suppression of material facts. The sanction order was also found to be vitiated because it was a non-speaking order that did not disclose any application of mind to the assessee's objections.

Conclusion: The reopening sanction was invalid and could not be sustained; the impugned sanction order and the consequential reassessment notice were quashed in favour of the assessee.

---