Reassessment cannot rest on a mere change of opinion; later judgment alone does not justify reopening a concluded assessment.

Reassessment under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 cannot be initiated merely because a later judgment suggests the original assessment view was wrong. The provision applies only where there is escapement of assessment; it does not permit reopening a concluded assessment on a mere change of opinion, absent concealment of facts or material showing escapement. A subsequent judicial view, by itself, does not create jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. On that basis, the reassessment proceedings were treated as without jurisdiction and invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings could be initiated under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 merely on the basis of a subsequent judgment and a change of opinion, when the original assessment had already been finalized.

Analysis: The reassessment notice was founded not on any concealment of fact or material showing escapement of assessment, but on a later judicial view that the concession or exemption earlier granted was incorrect. The legal position applied was that reassessment jurisdiction under Section 21 is attracted only where there is escapement of assessment and not where the authority seeks to reopen a concluded assessment merely because its earlier view has changed. A subsequent judgment, by itself, did not supply jurisdiction for reopening in the absence of any allegation of concealment or escapement.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings were jurisdiction and invalid, as they were based only on a change of opinion and not on escapement of assessment.

---