Change of opinion bars reassessment where reopening rests on the same material and no fresh basis is shown.

Reassessment under section 29(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 cannot be sustained where it is based on the same material and the same controversy already examined in the original assessment. The court noted that the treatment of broken rice supplied to millers in lieu of hulling charges had been earlier considered, and no fresh factual basis was shown to support a belief that income had escaped assessment. Reopening on identical material was therefore a mere change of opinion and was unjustified, so the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether reassessment proceedings under section 29(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 could be reopened on the basis of change of opinion without fresh material.

Analysis: The original assessment had already examined the treatment of broken rice given to millers in lieu of hulling charges. The reopening was founded on the same material and on the same controversy, with no fresh factual basis shown to justify a belief that income had escaped assessment. A prior decision on the identical issue had already held that such broken rice did not form part of the taxable turnover in the hands of the assessee. In these circumstances, reopening on the very same material amounted to a mere change of opinion, which cannot sustain reassessment.

Conclusion: The reopening under section 29(7) was unjustified and the assessee succeeded.

---