Reassessment and tax classification upheld where Hindi text of notification prevailed over conflicting English version

Reassessment was upheld where the competent authority formed reasons to believe that the original assessment had applied an incorrect tax rate; the reopening was not invalid merely because it differed from the earlier view, and it was not treated as a mere change of opinion. On classification, shampoo sold for washing hair was held outside the 8% entry for washing soaps and materials used for washing purposes. The Court applied the rule that, for a Uttar Pradesh taxing notification, the Hindi version prevails over a conflicting English version, and on that basis sustained the higher-rate classification. The writ petition therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sanction and notice for reopening the assessment were vitiated as a mere change of opinion. (ii) Whether shampoo sold for washing hair fell within the 8% entry for washing soaps and materials used for washing purposes or was liable to tax under the higher rate entry, and whether the Hindi version of the notification controlled the interpretation.

Issue (i): Whether the sanction and notice for reopening the assessment were vitiated as a mere change of opinion.

Analysis: The reassessment was founded on the competent authority's view that the original assessment had charged a lower rate of tax and that the correct rate required examination under the relevant notification entries. The earlier rectification proceedings had attained finality, but the subsequent reopening proceeded on the separate premise that the assessment involved an incorrect rate application and was supported by reasons to believe.

Conclusion: The reopening was held to be valid and not a case of change of opinion.

Issue (ii): Whether shampoo sold for washing hair fell within the 8% entry for washing soaps and materials used for washing purposes or was liable to tax under the higher rate entry, and whether the Hindi version of the notification controlled the interpretation.

Analysis: The relevant English entry referred broadly to washing soaps and other materials used for washing purposes, but the Hindi version restricted the entry to soap used for washing clothes. The Court applied the rule that where the English and Hindi versions of an Uttar Pradesh notification differ, the Hindi version prevails. On that basis, and having regard to the admitted use of the product for washing hair, shampoo was held not to fall within the 8% entry claimed by the petitioner.

Conclusion: Shampoo was held not to be covered by the 8% entry, and the Revenue's classification was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, as the reopening of assessment was justified and the product was not covered by the lower-rate notification entry.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the English and Hindi versions of a Uttar Pradesh taxing notification differ, the Hindi version prevails, and a reassessment based on correct application of the applicable rate is not invalid merely because it results in a different tax view from the original assessment.

---