Reassessment and input tax credit claims failed where no statutory defect, no proof of eligibility, and non-joinder of a necessary party were shown.

Reassessment was not quashed because the petitioner failed to show lack of statutory authority or that the reopening rested only on a mere change of opinion; the record indicated departmental scrutiny of the vendor's returns and reconsideration of the tax credit claim. Input tax credit on the capital goods was also denied because the petitioner did not produce adequate pleadings or evidence to establish that the machinery was new rather than old and used. The writ petition further suffered from non-joinder of the supplier, who was a necessary party to a dispute over the nature of the machinery purchased. The Court declined interference and upheld the reassessment order and notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order granting permission for reassessment and the consequential notice could be quashed on the ground that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion and lacked additional material. (ii) Whether the petitioner established entitlement to input tax credit on the capital goods in question. (iii) Whether non-joinder of the supplier as a necessary party affected the maintainability of the writ petition.

Issue (i): Whether the order granting permission for reassessment and the consequential notice could be quashed on the ground that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion and lacked additional material.

Analysis: The petitioner was required to show that the authorities acted without jurisdiction or contrary to the statute. The record disclosed that the department acted after scrutiny of the vendor's returns and formed a view that the tax credit granted to the petitioner required reconsideration. The petitioner did not place material before the Court to show that the reassessment was founded only on a change of opinion or that the impugned action was without statutory basis.

Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment order and notice failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner established entitlement to input tax credit on the capital goods in question.

Analysis: The controversy turned on whether the plant and machinery purchased by the petitioner were new machinery or old and used machinery. The Court found that the petitioner did not produce sufficient record or pleadings to show that the machinery was new and that it was therefore entitled to input tax credit. In the absence of such foundational proof, the claim to credit could not be accepted.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to establish entitlement to input tax credit.

Issue (iii): Whether non-joinder of the supplier as a necessary party affected the maintainability of the writ petition.

Analysis: Since the dispute directly involved whether the machinery was purchased from the supplier and whether it was new or used, the supplier was a proper and necessary party to the writ petition. Its absence was treated as an additional ground against interference.

Conclusion: The writ petition was also liable to fail for non-joinder of a necessary party.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the reassessment proceedings and upheld the impugned order and notice, resulting in dismissal of the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment or reopening will not be quashed in writ jurisdiction unless the petitioner shows lack of statutory authority or absence of material, and a claim to input tax credit must be supported by clear pleadings and proof of eligibility.

---