TMI Blog1978 (10) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Sales Tax v. Hanuman Trading Company[1979] 43 S.T.C. 408. (S.T.R. No. 852 of 1975) and is answered by saying that the dealer was liable to tax under section 3-D(2) of the Act. Coming now to the second question, the Sales Tax Officer in proceedings under rule 41(5) had considered the sales of foodgrains made by the assessee on behalf of the ex-U.P. principals, and had held them to be nontaxable. Subsequently, taking the view that they were taxable, he issued notices under section 21. The basis on which he took this view does not appear to be based on any material other than his own subjective view. It is thus a case where notice under section 21 of the Act has been issued on a change of opinion by the Sales Tax Officer. The question is w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 on forward sales of silver, but the Sales Tax Officer did not assess that turnover. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened under section 21 and the turnover taxed. The question arose as to whether this could be done under section 21. Two contentions were raised on behalf of the assessee: (1) that as the turnover had been disclosed in the original assessment it was not a case of escaped assessment, and (2) that action under section 21 could be taken only in case the Sales Tax Officer came across some material other than that already available at the time of the original assessment. Both these contentions were rejected. It was held that the language of section 21 was wide enough to cover cases of inadvertent mistake, and it was not necessa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Etawah[1969] 23 S.T.C. 481., following the decision in the case of Allahabad Milling Co. v. Sales Tax Officer II[1966] 17 S.T.C. 211., it was held that the considerations, which applied to cases relating to section 34 of the Income-tax Act, apply to the proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, and before action under section 21 can be taken, the assessing authority must have material on the basis of which he forms the belief that the turnover had escaped assessment. It was also laid down, following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Narayanappa v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore[1967] 63 I.T.R. 219 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 523., that the opinion formed could not be based purely on his subjective satisfac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contention and is in no way contrary to the other decisions noticed. Further, in a case where a particular point has been considered on merits and a view taken, it would not be a case of inadvertent mistake or omission if it is found that the view taken earlier was wrong. The position that emerges is that while in Suwa Lal Pooran Mal[1963] 14 S.T.C. 456., this Court has taken the view that the powers under section 21 of reopening an assessment are very wide and on that line of reasoning adopted indicated that an assessment can be reopened on a change of opinion, the later decisions of this Court do not go to this extent. The decision in Suwa Lal Pooran Mal(3) does not appear to have been noticed in the two later decisions referred to ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
