Reassessment permitted despite change of opinion where statutory sanction existed and the record supported reopening.

Reassessment under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act was upheld because the record showed prior permission from the Additional Commissioner existed, defeating the challenge that sanction was absent. The court also held that section 29(7) expressly permits reassessment within the prescribed period even where it involves a change of opinion, so the reassessment could not be invalidated on that ground. The Tribunal's contrary findings were unsustainable on the material before it, and the reassessment order was restored, with the assessee's challenge failing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment proceedings were vitiated for want of permission or sanction from the Additional Commissioner to reopen the completed assessment; (ii) Whether reassessment under section 29(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act could be invalidated on the ground that it involved a change of opinion.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment proceedings were vitiated for want of permission or sanction from the Additional Commissioner to reopen the completed assessment.

Analysis: The original records were summoned and examined. They disclosed that the order dated 13.05.2019 of the Additional Commissioner was available on record, and the departmental record also showed issuance of notice before grant of permission. The finding of the Tribunal that no permission existed was therefore contrary to the material on record.

Conclusion: The reassessment was not invalid for want of sanction, and the Tribunal's finding on this aspect was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether reassessment under section 29(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act could be invalidated on the ground that it involved a change of opinion.

Analysis: Section 29(1) empowers reassessment where turnover has escaped assessment or tax has been levied at a lower rate, and section 29(7) specifically authorises reassessment within the prescribed period notwithstanding that it may involve a change of opinion. Once the statute expressly permits reassessment even on a change of opinion, the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the reassessment on that ground.

Conclusion: Reassessment could validly be made even if it involved a change of opinion.

Final Conclusion: The reassessment order was restored and the assessee's challenge failed, as the questions of law were answered against the assessee and in favour of the State.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute expressly authorises reassessment notwithstanding a change of opinion, and the record shows that the requisite sanction existed, the reassessment cannot be struck down on either ground.

---