Change of opinion cannot justify reassessment without fresh material supporting a reason to believe escaped turnover.

Reassessment under the U.P. VAT Act cannot be sustained where the proposed reopening is based only on a change of opinion on material already examined in the original assessment. The assessing officer had already issued notice, considered the assessee's reply, and accepted that the turnover did not represent taxable consideration; the later reassessment proposal relied on the same transaction without any fresh fact, document, or information. Sanction proceedings do not remove the requirement of material supporting a reason to believe that turnover has escaped assessment. On that basis, the notice and sanction order were quashed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether sanction for reassessment under Section 29(7) of the U.P. V.A.T. Act, 2008 could be sustained when the proposed reopening was founded only on a change of opinion and no fresh material had emerged after the original assessment.

Analysis: The original assessment had specifically examined the very turnover later sought to be reopened. The assessing officer had issued notice, obtained the assessee's reply, considered it, and accepted the explanation by holding that the amount did not represent taxable consideration for transfer of property in goods. The subsequent proposal for reassessment relied on the same material and the same transaction, with no new fact, document, or information shown to have come into existence after the assessment order. In such a situation, the proposed action amounted only to a change of opinion. The existence of sanction proceedings did not dispense with the need for material capable of supporting a reason to believe that turnover had escaped assessment.

Conclusion: The proposed reassessment was not legally sustainable, and the notice/order issued for sanction under Section 29(7) was quashed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment cannot rest on a mere change of opinion on the same material already considered in the original assessment; fresh material is required to support a reason to believe that turnover has escaped assessment.

---