Reassessment cannot rest on a later judicial ruling alone when concluded assessments exist and no fresh material is shown.

Reassessment under Section 31 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act was held unsustainable where earlier assessments had already been completed and reopening was based only on a later Supreme Court ruling without fresh material; those notices and consequential demand orders were quashed. In matters involving deemed assessment or cases where no prior assessment on the disputed issue had been made, the challenge was not entertained in writ jurisdiction because no change-of-opinion issue arose and the statutory appellate remedy had to be pursued. The judgment thus distinguishes between reopening concluded assessments on a mere later legal pronouncement and disputes requiring statutory adjudication of tax liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment notices and consequential demand orders under Section 31 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 could be sustained where earlier assessments had already been made and the sole basis for reopening was a subsequent Supreme Court decision. (ii) Whether writ petitions challenging reassessment in cases of deemed assessment or where no prior assessment under Sections 31 or 33 had been made should be entertained despite availability of the statutory appellate remedy.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment notices and consequential demand orders under Section 31 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 could be sustained where earlier assessments had already been made and the sole basis for reopening was a subsequent Supreme Court decision.

Analysis: Section 31 requires reasonable grounds to believe that turnover has escaped assessment, been under-assessed, or assessed at a lower rate. The provision was read as permitting reopening only on the existence of relevant material and not on a mere change of opinion. The earlier assessments in the first set of cases had already concluded under Sections 31 or 33, and the reassessment notices were issued only because of the later decision on mobile-phone chargers. No fresh material had come into the Department's possession. A later judicial pronouncement does not by itself furnish a new factual basis for reopening a concluded assessment when the issue had already been dealt with on the same material.

Conclusion: The reassessment action in the previously assessed cases was invalid and was quashed, in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether writ petitions challenging reassessment in cases of deemed assessment or where no prior assessment under Sections 31 or 33 had been made should be entertained despite availability of the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: In the remaining matters, the returns had only resulted in deemed assessment or assessment under Section 27, and no prior opinion had been formed on the disputed issue. In such cases, the argument of change of opinion did not apply. The Court also held that factual questions concerning tax liability needed examination by the statutory authorities. Since an efficacious appellate mechanism was available, the writ remedy was not the proper forum for those cases, though interim protection was directed to preserve the petitioners' rights while pursuing appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petitions in the deemed-assessment matters were dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy, in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The judgment granted relief only in the matters where reassessment was attempted after prior assessments solely on the basis of a later legal ruling, but declined writ interference in the remaining matters that required statutory adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment cannot be founded on a mere change of opinion or on a subsequent judicial pronouncement alone when no fresh material exists, but where no prior assessment on the issue has been made, the assessee must ordinarily pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

---