HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 352 of 2018 Along with : 1. Sales/trade Tax Revision No. 353 of 2018: Ravindra Kumar Tiwari Versus The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, UP Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Jhansi in Second Appeal No. 80 of 2014 for Assessment Year 2000-01. The present revision was admitted by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2018 on the following questions of law: "(i) Whether any reassessment proceedings could have been drawn up against the assessee when, admittedly, there did not exist any material that may have resulted in formation of 'reason to believe' as to escapement of turnover of sand? (ii) Whether, in absence of any fresh material, reassessment could have been undertaken on the simple change of opinion arising from the facts noted in the original assessment order?" 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist was granted permission for excavating sand in the disputed year and deposited Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Aloke Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. Ravindra Kumar Tiwari .....Revisionist(s) The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, UP .....Opposite Party(s) a sum of Rs. 10,88,000/- towards royalty. The assessing authority, while framing the assessment order dated 01.05.2002, accepted the quantity of sand sold but disbelieved the selling rate. Proceedings under Section 21(2) were initiated on the basis of some information received that an amount of Rs. 9,67,587/- was deposited by the revisionist towards royalty apart from the above-mentioned amount. An ex-parte order dated 16.01.2006 was passed. Subsequently, an application under Section 30 was filed, which was allowed on 31.05.2006, recalling the ex parte order. On 27.02.2008, again a reassessment order was passed on the basis of the alleged information, against which an appeal was filed. In appeal, a specific pleading was made that the record be summoned for verifying the correctness of the information which necessitated the passing of the reassessment order. Instead of summoning the record, the matter was remanded by order dated 11.05.2011. 4. Thereafter, an ex-parte reassessment order was passed on 31.03.2012. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed. Again, a request was made for summoning the record for verification of the correctness of the information. The appeal was proceeded with and partly allowed. Still aggrieved by the order, a second appeal was filed before the Commercial Court. By the impugned order dated 30.08.2018, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated on the alleged ground of information being received that Rs. 9,67,587/- had been deposited towards royalty, which has not been disclosed. The said information from day one, was sought to be called upon for verification, but none of the authorities summoned the record to verify the same and thereafter passed the order. 6. He further submits that the proceedings under Section 21(2) cannot be initiated merely on the basis of a change of opinion. He further submits that no material has been brought on record which necessitated the initiation of the proceedings. In support of his submission, he relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Vikrant Tyres Limited versus State of U.P. and others, reported in 2005 U.P.T.C. 501 and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case STRE No. 352 of 2018 2 of State of Uttar Pradesh & others versus M/s. Aryaverth Chawl Udyog & others, reported in 2017 U.P.T.C. 262. 7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned order. 8. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record. 9. The record shows that the original assessment order was passed, thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated on the alleged ground that the assessee had deposited royalty of a sum of Rs. 9,67,587/-. The said fact had been concealed. The revisionist pleaded that the said information may be verified, but no material has been brought on record to show as to whether the said information was available on record. This Court has held that reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated on the same material. 10. In the case of M/s. Vikrant Tyres Limited (supra), this Court has held as under: "14. Re-assessment on the same material by same authority, if permitted, for no valid reason, will open flood gate for arbitrary action exposing one to unending process, permitting uncertainty, re-opening of closed chapters without assigning good reason, depending upon whims of individuals and in the end precipitating anomalous situations." 11. The Division Bench of this Court has held that reassessment on the same material, if permitted, will open a flood gate for arbitrary action. For initiation of reassessment proceedings, the authorities have to disclose fully and truly all material necessary for reassessment. In absence thereof, the proceedings cannot be permitted. 12. For reassessment proceedings, "reason to believe" means a satisfaction reached on the basis of facts and material available before the assessing authority. In case of change of opinion, there must be a nexus which is required to be established between the change of opinion and the material present before the assessing authority. 13. The material in existence remained the same during the assessment proceedings and no additional material or facts have been referred to for STRE No. 352 of 2018 3 explaining such reason to believe. The assessing authority has to record a reason to believe for initiation of reassessment proceedings. 14. The Apex Court in the case of Aryaverth Chawl (supra) has categorically held that in the absence of material available, reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated. In the case in hand, the opinion of the authorities is that they have brought material to show that the revisionist had deposited royalty of Rs. 9,67,587/-, apart from the amount of Rs. 10,88,000/- disclosed during the original assessment proceedings. The record shows that no such information was available on record, but still the reassessment proceedings were initiated against the revisionist, which cannot be justified. 15. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot sustain and is hereby quashed. 16. The present revision is allowed. Questions of law are answered accordingly. September 21, 2026 Abhishek Gupta STRE No. 352 of 2018 4 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad