Reassessment permission upheld where bogus Form-F material and recorded satisfaction supported reopening under VAT law.

Reassessment under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 requires the Assessing Authority to have reason to believe that turnover has escaped assessment or that exemption was wrongly allowed, and after expiry of the limitation period, the Commissioner must also be satisfied under Section 29(7). At the permission stage, the authority need not finally decide the merits of the claimed exemption; it must only consider relevant material and apply its mind. On the facts, material from the Special Investigation Branch indicated that the disputed Form-F appeared bogus, the dealer was heard, and its objections were considered. The permission to reopen the assessment was therefore upheld and the reassessment notice challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Additional Commissioner was justified in granting permission under Section 29(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 to reopen the assessment on the basis of the alleged fake or misused Form-F and whether such permission suffered from absence of reason to believe or non-consideration of objections.

Analysis: Reassessment under Section 29(1) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 depends on the Assessing Authority having reason to believe that turnover has escaped assessment or that exemption has been wrongly allowed, and where the period of limitation under Section 29(3) has expired, the Commissioner's satisfaction under Section 29(7) is also necessary. The permission stage is not a full adjudication on the merits of the alleged exemption; it only requires relevant material and application of mind. The record showed material from the Special Investigation Branch indicating that the disputed Form-F appeared bogus and that the claimed exemption may have led to escaped assessment. The petitioner was also heard and its explanation was considered, so the order could not be said to be mechanical, arbitrary, or without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The permission to reopen the assessment was valid and the challenge to the reassessment notice failed.

---