Change of opinion cannot justify reassessment when the original assessment already examined the same tax-rate issue.

Reassessment under the U.P. Trade Tax Act cannot rest on a mere change of opinion where the original assessment had already applied a 5% tax rate to the same goods and the identical issue had been examined earlier between the parties. The reasons for reopening were no different from the earlier view already taken, and no fresh material showing escaped assessment was identified. In these circumstances, the notices and authorisation for reassessment were unsustainable and were set aside, with the reassessment proceedings quashed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notices and authorisation for reassessment under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, based on the alleged wrong rate of tax on the same items already considered in the original assessment, were sustainable or amounted to a mere change of opinion.

Analysis: The original assessment had already applied a 5% rate of tax to the relevant goods. The very same issue regarding the applicable rate of tax had been considered in earlier proceedings between the same parties for later assessment years, where reopening on the same footing was held to be impermissible. Even if the audit report was not the sole basis for reopening, the reason for initiating reassessment remained identical, namely a different view on the same material already examined in assessment. In such circumstances, reopening could not be justified as escaped assessment, because the proposed reassessment rested on a reappraisal of the earlier view rather than on fresh material.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices and the order authorising reassessment were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to reopening succeeded, and the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 1998-99 were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment cannot be initiated on the mere change of opinion where the original assessment had already considered the relevant issue and no fresh material justifying escaped assessment is shown.

---