TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CLO after processing of ROM spending a miniscule amount in order to achieve real market value. In this context, law is well settled that the Taxing Authorities do not have the power to dictate as to what business module or method should be adopted by a businessman. It is upto him to manage his business affair according to his wisdom. The Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Enforcement Wing, Bhubaneswar while preparing the tax evasion report has been swayed by assumed low price of sale of ROM without indicating anywhere in the tax evasion report as to how the said price is low. It also does not refer to prevalent market price of the relevant period. In this context, it is important to note here that the opposite parties in their counter affidavit at Paragraph-13 have admitted that the price of ROM is not decided by the Indian Bureau of Mines. In such background, the assumption that ROM is being sold at abysmally low price has no legs to stand. Moreover, there is nothing to show that there is any legal bar for selling of ROM - there exists no legal evidence/a scrap of paper to show that the petitioner has actually sold CLO and not ROM for the years 2008-2011. To our mind power und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m to 40 mm containing higher grade of iron. Another by-product of such crushing and screening is known as Fines containing granule materials like alumina, silica, dusts, spoils and other impurities. According to Mr. Jain, learned Senior Advocate, these Fines require further processing by way of washing and beneficiation so as to produce usable Fines and slime material. Earlier, excavated ores/ROM were crushed, sized and screened by JSPL and were given back to the lessee Sunder Lal Sarda and Mohan Lal Sarda for sale to prospective buyers and JSPL was paid for job work charges for undertaking crushing, sizing and screening of ROM. While undertaking crushing, sizing, screening of the excavated ROM, huge quantity of residuary mixed with low grade Fines is generated, which are more than the quantity of CLO. It is the case of the petitioner that out of the excavated ore, after crushing and sizing on an average 25% to 30% CLO was produced and the rest 70% to 75% represented low grade fines. For such low grade fines, there was no market at all. This resulted in piling of huge stock of residuary mixed with low grade Fines covering the mining lease area. Since such business module desc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time, which would be mutually decided by both the parties to the agreement. Thus, the petitioner Company has been selling ROM excavated from the mines to JSPL on as is where is basis and paying highest rate of royalty prescribed for CLO containing 65 % Fe and above for the entire quantity of ROM so sold to JSPL . It is the further case of the petitioner that prior to sell of ROM, the mining officials inspect the quality and quantity of the ores and only after that ROM is weighed and removed from the mines to the crusher plant of JSPL situated within the leasehold area. At the crusher plant of JSPL , the ROM is crushed, sized and screened to CLO along with residue containing impurities and Fines. The petitioner showed the figures of ROM, CLO and Fines in its Return filed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The petitioner has/had obtained Transit Passes and permits from the Mining Authorities for transporting ROM from mines to the crusher plant of JSPL under Annexure-12. The petitioner also filed various statutory Returns before the appropriate authorities under various statues such as Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957, Orissa Entry Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt article having distinct name, character comes out. Thus, the petitioner cannot avail Input Tax credit on the same. Thus, according to Mr. Jain, learned Senior Advocate vide Annnexure-6, the authorities accepted the business module of the petitioner Company regarding digging out of Iron Ore/ROM without engaging in any manufacturing activities. While such was the position, vide notice dated 17.5.2012 (Annexure-7), the petitioner was noticed by opposite party no.3 to appear in person or through its authorised agent and to produce accounts and documents relating to its business in order to satisfy him that the Return for the tax periods, i.e., 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 were correct and complete since it appeared to him that the whole/part of the turnover of sales/purchase has (a) escaped assessment, (b) been under assessed. In other words, notice for re opening of the assessment was issued vide Annexure-7. Pursuant to such notice, the petitioner appeared before opposite party no.3 on 2.7.2012 with relevant documents and books of account and prayed for intimating/communicating the reasons for reopening of completed assessment for the above noted periods. On the said date, i.e., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the petitioner submitted its further written notes of submission inter alia stating that in absence of fresh material in possession, the notice issued under Section 43(1) of OVAT Act alleging escaped reassessment/under assessment was without jurisdiction. The entire tax evasion report has been passed on the basis of presumption, conjecture and surmises. Though the said report accepted sale and sale price of ROM by the petitioner to JSPL , reopening of assessment on the basis of such report was illegal as the same reflected non-application of mind. According to Mr. Jain, the petitioner also took a specific stand that comparison of sale price of ROM with CLO was not permissible as CLO is a totally different product vis- -vis ROM. Further, there was nothing to show on records that the dealer/petitioner had received an amount in excess, shown and charged in the sale invoices of ROM. In such background, he contended that initiation of proceeding for reopening of assessment was liable to be quashed. The dealer/petitioner also took the plea that neither under OVAT Act nor under the Rules made under the OVAT Act , the authorities have any jurisdiction to suggest about the busine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was selling impure ROM only after paying royalty of the highest grade of CLO was found to be arithmetically impossible. Further, it is the stand of the opposite parties that the agreement under Annexure-3 is a post dated agreement of an ante dated activity regarding sale of CLO at the value of ROM, while paying royalty at the value of CLO but paying VAT at value of ROM, which is abysmally low. According to them, OVAT Act explicitly provides agreement or contract of such nature as void ab initio. In this context, the opposite parties have relied on Section 101-A of OVAT Act . For all these reasons, on 29.8.2011 vide Annexure-B, the Sales Tax Officer, Investigation Unit, Barbil called upon the petitioner to produce purchase, production and dispatch of iron ore, sized iron ore and iron ore fines (grade wise and size wise), sale figure of iron ore, sized iron ore and iron ore Fines both in terms of quantity and value, copies of Returns filed for the period 1.4.2008 to 31.4.2011 under OVAT Act , Orissa Entry Tax Act, Central Sales Act, and Audited Balance Sheet. Thereupon, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax submitted the fraud case report under Annexure-C. On perusal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat it was selling ROM to JSPL is contrary to the conditions of the lease and various statutory provisions. Further, the opposite parties have asserted that by virtue of the agreement under Annexure-3, there has been an illegal shifting of point of sale from ex-leasehold area to ex-mine point. On this account, also the agreement under Annexure-3 is ab initio, null and void. They have also stated that the Pollution Control Authorities have permitted the petitioner to beneficiate ROM by way of installation of primary iron ore crusher of the capacity of 300 TPH, secondary iron ore crusher of 400 TPH (3 nos.), tertiary iron ore crusher of the capacity 350 TPH (3 nos.) to produce sized iron ores, i.e., CLO. Therefore, the claim that ROM has been sold by the petitioner is factually incorrect. Further, the stand of the opposite parties is that since administrative charges are being borne by the petitioner, thus, the petitioner is vitally and legally interested in goods/ROM even after alleged ex-mine sale. Therefore, according to the opposite parties, no sale had taken place in terms of Sale of Goods Act read with OVAT Act on ex-mine basis. They have also relied on various clauses o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . With regard to establishment of processing plants by the petitioner as alleged by the opposite parties in Paragraphs-9 and 33(d) of the counter-affidavit, the stand of the petitioner is that they have not established any such processing plant within the leasehold area. The said plant has been established by the JSPL in terms of permission granted by the competent authority of the State Government. Further, the arrangement to supply of ROM has been approved by the Director of Mines under Annexure-2. Further, the stand of the petitioner is that there exists no case for reassessment and the same has been done merely on the basis of change of opinion. In such background, opposite party no.3 by issuing the impugned notice under Annexure-7 and impugned orders under Annexure-11 has acted without jurisdiction. The petitioner specifically denies that it is selling CLO instead of ROM. It also reiterates that there has been violation of principles of natural justice because the documents which form the basis of opinion for reopening the petitioner s case, copies of the report and annexures, etc. were not provided to the petitioner. With regard to the averment made in Paragraph-22 to the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments which run up to 180 pages having not been supplied to the petitioner, there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice. Merely, permitting the authorised representative of the petitioner to take note of the gist of the report was wholly inadequate so as to enable the petitioner to comprehend the allegations made in the report particularly, when the report ran to more than 180 pages. Further, the information/data/ records obtained by opposite party no.3 from their Orissa Mining Corporation and Indian Bureau of Mines in respect of price of iron ore prevailing from time to time were never disclosed to the petitioner, thus it was not afforded with any opportunity to rebut them. Mr. Jain, learned Senior Advocate further submitted that foundation of the tax evasion report/fraud report under Annexure-9 was also not supplied to the petitioner thereby occasioning gross violation of principles of natural justice. In such background, he prayed that the impugned order under Annexure-11 ought to be quashed. Thirdly, he reiterated that both the notice under Annexure-7 initiating the reassessment proceeding and the impugned order under Annexure-11 are legally vulnerable as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntic and capable of giving rise to inference regarding escapement, (2) the information should be definite and there must be necessity of live link between the material and believe (3) there should be new information dehors the assessment record thereby giving rise to evasion of tax and (4) the materials should be relevant and should not be a matter of guess work. Here, since no new information was there in the hands of opposite party no.3, the impugned reassessment order is a clear case of change of opinion and therefore, is liable to be set aside. According to Mr. Jain, learned Senior Advocate, reassessment has been done on the basis of change of opinion as the authority has assumed without any legal evidence that the petitioner has sold high priced CLO instead of ROM as selling of ROM at low price is an unusual business practice. In other words, the reassessment order has been passed presuming existence of a better business module and doubting rationale of petitioner selling ROM instead of CLO. In this context, he submitted that the Authorities under OVAT Act has no jurisdiction to suggest business module. The impugned order under Annexure-11 like that of Annexure-9 has also been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he quantity of CLO and Fines equals the quantity of ROM so it must be taken that the petitioner has sold CLO not ROM. According to him the Revenue Authorities are not the experts under the law to arrive at such a conclusion. Thus by coming to such a conclusion, the opposite party no.3 under Annexure-11 has also acted without jurisdiction. In such background, he submitted that erroneously the reassessment has been done though no factual basis exists for treating that the petitioner sold CLO instead of ROM. Even otherwise as per the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12119 of 2014, it is not disputed that the petitioner sells ROM to JSPL , who processes the same for producing CLO and Fines. Thus, it is a strange case while the Mining Department allows sale of ROM, the Finance Department is saying that the petitioner is selling CLO not ROM. Such stand is also impermissible in law. He reiterated that since there has been violation of principles of natural justice in course of proceeding and since reassessment proceeding has been undertaken merely on change of opinion thus being without jurisdiction, the writ application is maintainable as per settled principles of law. He also submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of India Limited (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court has made it clear that change of opinion cannot be a reason to reopen the assessment as that would amount to review. In case of M/s. Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society, New Delhi (supra), it has been laid down that an error discovered by assessing authority on a reconsideration of same material does not justify reassessment. Here Mr. Jain, learned Sr. Advocate submitted that no fresh material/fact was/is there in the present case. Here on selfsame facts, some new, artificial and presumptive parameters have been used without backing of any evidence/scientific data for re-opening assessment. Thus, such reassessment is on account of change of opinion, which makes the entire proceeding without jurisdiction and thus liable to be quashed. In Naba Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd., and another (supra), this Court has reiterated that reassessment is impermissible on mere change of opinion particularly when no fresh material is there with the Assessing Officer to go ahead with the reassessment. According to Mr. Jain, learned Sr.Advocate, in the present case there is nothing to show that the petitioner has concealed some materials from the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tence has been recognised in Rule-64B of the Minining Concession Rules,1960. On the question of onus of proof lying on the Revenue Authority to prove that the assessee has received an undisclosed sum from sale, the petitioner relied on the following decisions in the cases of Girdhari Lal Nannelal vrs- The Sales Tax Commissioner M.P. [(1976) 3 SCC 701] and K.P. Varghese vrs- Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and another, [(1981) 4 SCC 173. In both the above cases, the Hon ble Supreme Court has made it clear that burden of proving understatement or concealment is on Revenue. This burden can be discharged by establishing facts and circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee had not correctly declared/disclosed the consideration received by him. According to Mr. Jain, learned Sr. Advocate in the present case, no such thing has been proved by the petitioner or that the petitioner has concealed the turnover of sales. Thus, the Revenue has not discharged its burden. In such background, merely by introducing new and artificial parameters based on conjectures and surmises to reconsider the same set of facts, the Assessing Officer has acted merely on the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding under Section-43 of OVAT Act cannot be said to be on the basis of change of opinion. With regard to proceeding under Section-43 of OVAT Act being without jurisdiction, he submitted that the notice for assessment under Section- 43 of OVAT Act was issued on the basis of information in possession of the Assessing Authority after receipt of the tax evasion report under Annexure-9/Annexure-C. On the basis of said tax evasion report, the Assessing Authority formed his opinion about escapement assessment/under assessment. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Authority was acted without jurisdiction warranting interference by the writ Court. With regard to violation of principles of natural justice, he submitted that the assessment record would indicate that during course of proceeding, the Revenue has furnished the reasons for assessment. He further submitted that during course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer afforded sufficient and reasonable opportunity to produce documents and evidence to support the figures disclosed in the books of account. The petitioner was confronted with the allegation contained in the tax evasion report and was granted adequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der passed on 1.11.2016, we will only take into account the last written note of submission filed by the opposite parties on 1.11.2016. It may be noted here that while in Index portion of written submission dated 25.8.2016, the Revenue relied on 10 judgments; in written submission dated 1.11.2016 as per the Index portion, they have relied on only 6 judgments. In the written notes of submission dated 1.11.2016, learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of this Court rendered in W.P.(C) No.12119 of 2014 in M/s. Jindal Steel and Power Limited and another vrs- State of Orissa and on Mideast Integrated Steel Ltd., -vrs- State of Odisha, [2016 (I) ILR-CUT 208], Bhusan Power and Steel Ltd., -vrs- State of Odisha, [2012 (I) ILR-CUT 421], Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., -vrs- Sales Tax Officer, [2012 (II) ILR-CUT 218], Commissioner of Income-tax vrs- Chhabil Dass Agarwal, [(2014) 1 SCC 603] and State of Odisha vrs- Durgadutt Moda, [(1973) 32 STC 98 (Ori)]. He also filed a note of submission to the queries raised by this Court on hearing held on 7.2.2017. Perused the case records. The undisputed facts of this case are as follows:- 10. The State Government executed a mining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd sizing. On 22.6.2006, Sunder Lal Sarda and Mohan Lal Sarda transferred the mines in favour of the petitioner after the State Government granted permission for such transfer. JSPL continued to purchase ROM from the petitioner. On 31.3.2008, the petitioner entered into an agreement with JSPL for sale of ROM under Annexure-3. Though, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue relying on counter attacked such agreement as ab initio, void, however, we will ignore such argument as no appropriate form has declared the same to be void and further, the impugned order does not say anything about its legality. Here, we should not forget that the Hon ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay vrs- Gordhandas Bhanji, (AIR 1952 S.C. 16), has made it clear that where a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain ground, its validity must be judged by the reasons mentioned in the order and the same cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons incorporated in the affidavit filed in the Court. The Hon ble Supreme Court made it clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanation subsequently g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or producing several documents for the tax period 1.4.2008 to 31.4.2011. Vide self-same notice, the petitioner was asked to produce documents/registers relating to purchase, production and dispatch of iron ore, sized iron ore and iron ore Fines so also the sale figures of iron ore, sized iron ore and iron ore Fines both in term of quantity and value grade-wise and size-wise. The petitioner was also asked to submit copies of Returns filed for the above mentioned period under OVAT Act , Orissa Entry Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act and the audited balance sheets. Though, the averment relating to Annexure- B has been made at Paragraph-18 of the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite parties, however, in Paragraph-20 of the rejoinder, the petitioner has denied issuance of receipt of the same by it. However, a perusal of LCR shows that Raghunath Panda, Authorized Signatory, on 7.9.2011, produced the document as required under Annexure-B without prejudice. Ultimately, the tax evasion report under Annexure-9 was prepared by Sales Tax Officer, Investigation Unit, Barbil alleging that the petitioner has sold ROM at low price. In coming to such a conclusion the Sales Tax Officer relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of assessment for the period 01/04/2008 to 31/03/2011. The Assessing Authority (Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Barbil Circle, Barbil) explained me the reasons of reopening of assessment based on information contained in a tax evasion report no.58 dt.29/02/2012 submitted by the Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Enforcement Range, Bhubaneswar. The contents of the report were explained to me in detail. The allegations relate to under invoicing of sale price of ROM during the period 01/04/2008 to 31/03/2011. The basis of the allegation of under invoicing was explained to me. It is alleged in the report that selling of ROM by a mine owner is unusual and any mines owner instead of selling ROM will sale calibrated lump ore (CLO) and the resultant of iron ore fines after processing of ROM so as to achieve the real market value of the ore mined. It is also alleged that the entire production of ROM has been sold at abysmally low price to one single customer. To prove under invoicing the reporting authority has taken resort to the figures submitted by us in Form H1 (Annual Return) to IBM for the year 2008-09, 09-10 10-11, the normal processing charges i.e. ₹ 203/- per MT to pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis on the processing charge of ₹ 230/- has been arrived at was also explained to him. He was shown the sale prices of different grades of CLO and iron Fines of Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. for the years, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010- 2011 of Barbil Sector, which was utilized for arriving at the conclusion of under invoicing. Shri Panda was allowed to go through the calculation sheets prepared by the reporting authority showing the amount under invoicing. Further, he was allowed to take extract of the documents, calculation sheet, OMC rate agreement No.13 between OMC Limited and J S Mineral Construction Company, Nelore. He also went though Annexure-9/Annexure-C. A perusal of LCR reveals that on 2.7.2012, the authorised representative never asked for copy of Tax Evasion Report and other materials. On 16.8.2012, the authorized representative on behalf of the petitioner filed a memo of appearance along with documents and made certain submissions as would be clear from Annexure-10 series. On that day, the statement of Surendra Panda, the Authorized Officer of the petitioner was recorded. On that day also there was no prayer from the side of the petitioner for supply of Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdiction. First, we will examine the contentions relation to violation of principles of natural justice. The tax evasion report under Annexure-9/Annexure-C runs only to 5 pages. The authorised representative of the petitioner, Mr. Raghunath Panda went through the same on 2.7.2012 and the contents of the report were also explained to him in detail as per his own statement quoted earlier. The basis of allegation of under invoicing was explained to him. In his statement he has stated that allegation in the report pertained to unusual practice of selling of ROM at abysmally low price. On that day, he never asked for copy of Tax Evasion Report. Even on 16.8.2012, the petitioner never asked for a copy of Tax Evasion Report. The petitioner only asked for tax evasion report on 17.10.2012 in a round about way while filing an exhaustive and detailed response. There the petitioner has admitted that it has been permitted to note down the contents (gist) of the report. It may once again be indicated that the Tax Evasion Report runs only to 5 pages and the written submission dated 17.10.2012 contains several attacks on the Tax Evasion Report and how the said report has been issued without jurisd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eswar while preparing the tax evasion report has been swayed by assumed low price of sale of ROM without indicating anywhere in the tax evasion report as to how the said price is low. It also does not refer to prevalent market price of the relevant period. In this context, it is important to note here that the opposite parties in their counter affidavit at Paragraph-13 have admitted that the price of ROM is not decided by the Indian Bureau of Mines. In such background, the assumption that ROM is being sold at abysmally low price has no legs to stand. Moreover, there is nothing to show that there is any legal bar for selling of ROM. In such background, the tax evasion report, which is based on conjectures, surmises and on certain artificial and presumptive parameters by taking into account a newly invented artificial formula,while the factual background remains the same, cannot constitute new/fresh information under Section-43(1) of OVAT Act for initiating a proceeding for reassessment by taking into account the price of an altogether different commercial commodity i.e. CLO. In this context, we refuse to accept the contention of Revenue that no new/fresh material is required to ini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eping in mind the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the decision of Gobardhan Das Bhanji (supra). In passing the impugned reassessment order under Annexure-11 while accepting the reasoning given in the tax evasion report under Annexure-9/Annexure-C based upon so-called unusual business practice of sale of ROM at low price, the opposite party No.3 has travelled beyond the same by coming to a conclusion that the petitioner is selling CLO and not ROM as the output of CLO and fines after processing equals that of ROM, for a given quantity. Thus, though the material facts remain same, the opposite party No.3 is of the opinion that as input and output ratio is 100%, the petitioner is selling CLO. Such a conclusion runs contrary to Tax Evasion Report under Annexure- 9 which does not dispute sale of ROM but at a lesser price resulting in under invoicing. In any case, merely because the input quantum of ROM equals the output quantum of CLO and Fines, it cannot be said that the dealer has been selling CLO not ROM. Had that been the case than after processing, there would not have been any Fines. The very presence of Fines containing impurities show JSPL has only processed ROM. Fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allegation anywhere about suppressing of figures of turnover of sales of ROM. Rather, relying on certain presumptive parameters and an artificial formula which takes in to account price of another commodity i.e. CLO, the reassessment proceeding has been initiated and concluded. Thus, such a reassessment proceeding is clearly based on change of opinion. Further, though opposite party No.3 treats the report under Annexure-9 as a new material containing a new formula, however as discussed earlier, it contains no new background facts relating to quantum of turnover for the relevant period. As indicated earlier, it only uses new and presumptive artificial parameters, which only reflect a change of opinion. A new artificial formula under the facts and circumstances as invented by the authorities cannot form a new material to open the assessment proceeding when factually there exists no evidence relating to under assessment/escaped assessment. Most importantly, so far as opposite party No.3 is concerned, there exists no legal evidence/a scrap of paper to show that the petitioner has actually sold CLO and not ROM for the years 2008-2011. To our mind power under Section-43 of the OVAT Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... distinguishable on facts. There, the Vigilance report was utilised in audit assessment under CST (O) Rules, 1957 illegally. This Court held that audit assessment has to completed only on the basis of materials available in audit visit report and that audit assessment and assessment of escaped turnover cover separate and distinct field. With regard to M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (supra), there it has been made clear that reassessment proceeding for the self-same year cannot be said to be without jurisdiction on the ground of change of opinion unless and until it is established that turn over brought to the tax in the reassessment was subject-matter of earlier assessment and no tax was levied by the assessing officer by taking a particular view. In other words, it makes it clear that if the re-assessment is sought to be done on same turn over, which was subject-matter of earlier assessment and no tax was levied by the assessing officer by taking a particular view, then re-assessment proceeding cannot be initiated as it would be a re-assessment only on the ground of change of opinion. Thus, it would become without jurisdiction. In the present case, as indicated earlier, her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
