Reassessment cannot rest on later case law alone when no fresh material exists to reopen a concluded assessment.

Reassessment under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act could not be sustained where the original assessment had already examined the relevant facts and the reopening was founded only on a later judicial pronouncement. No fresh tangible material or independent reason to believe was shown to justify reopening, and a subsequent view of law alone was insufficient to reopen concluded assessments. The reassessment notices and consequential order were therefore treated as lacking a proper jurisdictional basis and were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment notices and the consequential order under Section 29 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act could be sustained when they were founded on a subsequent judgment, without fresh tangible material and in a situation where the original assessment had already considered the relevant facts.

Analysis: The material placed before the assessing authority was already on record at the time of the original assessment. The reassessment was initiated on the basis of a later judicial pronouncement, but no new material or independent reason to believe was shown to justify reopening. A subsequent view of law cannot, by itself, reopen concluded assessments where the factual matrix had already been examined. The notices were also found to be contrary to the settled limits on reassessment and were treated as having been issued without proper jurisdictional basis.

Conclusion: The reassessment notices and the impugned order were invalid and liable to be quashed.

---