Reassessment jurisdiction fails when reopening rests on conjecture rather than objective material linking turnover to escapement.

Reassessment under the U.P. Trade Tax Act requires objective, relevant material showing a rational nexus with escaped turnover; a mere conjecture or subjective assumption is insufficient. The recorded reasons here treated broken glass as a waste product allegedly obtained from filling factories, despite the assessee's consistent case that it had purchased broken glass from kabaries and was only a trader. The distinction between waste product and waste material was material, and the reasons did not establish a live link between the material relied on and any escapement of turnover. The sanction to reopen the assessment was therefore invalid and the reopening could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sanction to reopen the assessment under section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was valid when the reasons recorded were based on the assumption that the disputed broken glass was a waste product taxable in the assessee's hands.

Analysis: Reassessment can be initiated only where the assessing authority has reason to believe, on relevant material, that turnover has escaped assessment. A mere conjectural or subjective view is insufficient. The impugned reasons proceeded on the assumption that broken glass must have come from filling factories and therefore constituted waste product, although the assessee's case throughout was that it had purchased broken glass from kabaries and was a trader, not a manufacturer. The distinction between waste product and waste material was material, and the reasons recorded did not establish any live link between the material relied upon and escapement of turnover. Earlier rejection of the deemed-manufacturer theory also weakened the basis of reopening. The cited decisions on purchase tax and burden of proof did not justify reopening on the facts found here.

Conclusion: The sanction to reopen the assessment was invalid and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed and the order granting permission to reopen the assessment was quashed because the recorded reasons were insufficient in law to support reassessment.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment jurisdiction under section 21(2) can be exercised only on objective, relevant material showing a rational nexus with escapement of turnover, and not on conjecture or surmise.

---