Reassessment cannot rest on mere suspicion or change of opinion when no suppression is recorded under sales tax law.

Reassessment under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act could not be sustained on mere suspicion or alleged misclassification of turnover; the authority needed objectively supported reasonable grounds showing escaped assessment. The earlier assessment had already considered the dealer's objections, and no recorded suppression was found, so a fresh adverse reassessment on the same facts was treated as a mere change of opinion. The invocation of Section 36 was also not made out on the facts. The appellate authority and Tribunal were therefore correct in upholding the assessee's position and rejecting the reassessment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether reassessment under Section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 could be sustained on the basis of suspicion and alleged misclassification of turnover. (ii) Whether the reassessment was valid in the absence of suppression and in the light of the earlier assessment, including the question whether there were valid grounds to invoke Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Issue (i): Whether reassessment under Section 16(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 could be sustained on the basis of suspicion and alleged misclassification of turnover.

Analysis: Reassessment power under Section 16(1) can be exercised only when the assessing authority has reasonable grounds to believe that turnover has escaped assessment. Such belief must rest on germane material and not on extraneous considerations or mere suspicion. The findings of the appellate authority and the Tribunal showed that the reassessment was founded on a working of taxable and exempt turnover, but not on a legally sustainable basis for treating the entire turnover as suppressed.

Conclusion: The reassessment under Section 16(1) was not sustainable merely on suspicion, and the finding in favour of the assessee was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment was valid in the absence of suppression and in the light of the earlier assessment, including the question whether there were valid grounds to invoke Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: The earlier assessment had already considered the dealer's objections and resulted in a limited addition. On the same facts and for the same assessment year, a fresh adverse action could not be justified as there was no recorded finding of suppression. The reassessment was treated as a mere change of opinion, and the Tribunal also found that the conditions for interference under Section 36 were not made out on the facts.

Conclusion: The reassessment was invalid for want of suppression and was properly set aside.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the appellate authority and the Tribunal were legally correct, and the revision was rejected, leaving the assessee successful on all substantial issues decided.

Ratio Decidendi: Reassessment under the sales tax law requires objectively supported reasonable grounds indicating escaped assessment or suppression, and it cannot be sustained on mere suspicion or a mere change of opinion.

---