Reassessment jurisdiction depends on a rational belief based on relevant material, not a mistaken rereading of examined accounts.

Reassessment under the U.P. Trade Tax Act requires a bona fide, rational belief based on relevant material that turnover has escaped assessment; a mere conjecture, extraneous consideration, or change of opinion is insufficient. The material relied upon for alleging excessive melting loss was found erroneous, because the balance sheet and assessment records showed finished goods and allied products had already been accounted for, and the actual melting loss was only about 4%. As the books of account and excise registers had already been examined in the original assessment, the permission for reassessment and the consequential notice were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the permission granted for reassessment and the consequential notice under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act were valid when the foundational requirement of 'reason to believe' was said to be absent.

Analysis: Reassessment can be initiated only when the assessing authority has material giving rise to a rational belief that turnover has escaped assessment. Such belief is a jurisdictional fact and must be founded on relevant, germane material having a nexus with escapement of turnover; it cannot rest on conjecture, extraneous considerations, or a mere change of opinion. On the record, the figures relied upon for alleging excessive melting loss were found to be erroneous, because the balance sheet and assessment materials showed finished goods, including brass slag and allied products, had already been accounted for and the actual melting loss was only about 4%, which did not support the conclusion that production was below the stated norm. The books of account and excise registers had also been examined in the original assessment.

Conclusion: The reassessment permission and the consequential notice were without jurisdiction and were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded because the precondition for reopening the assessment was not satisfied and no valid basis existed for invoking reassessment powers.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment proceedings under the trade tax law can be sustained only if the assessing authority forms a bona fide, rationally connected belief on relevant material that turnover has escaped assessment; a mistaken reading of already examined accounts does not create jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.

---