The "information" envisaged under Section 18(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959, for purposes of reassessment may well stem from the existing record as also from sources external thereto. A mere change of opinion or having second thoughts by the prescribed authority on the same set of facts and materials already available on the original record does not constitute "information" within the meaning of the statute to confer jurisdiction for reopening a completed assessment.

S.S.Sandhawalia, J.

1. Should the "information which has come into his possession", as envisaged by Sec.18(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 , for purposes of reassessment, necessarily spring from a source external to the original record? This is the significant question which has necessitated this reference to the Full Bench. Equally at issue is the correctness of the view of the Division Bench in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1400 of 1973 (Satya Narainji Mills V/s. State of Bihar) decided on 13th August, 1976.

2. Since we propose to answer the aforesaid pristinely legal questions only, it seems unnecessary to delve deeply into the facts. It suffices to mention that the petitioner-firm Messrs. Bhimraj Madan Lal is a registered dealer under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called "the Act"), and is inter alia engaged in the manufacture of various kinds of pulses. For this purpose, it purchases whole grains like arhar, khesari, masoor, etc., from producers as well as registered dealers for sale of its products within the State as also outside the State through its agents as well as in the course of inter-State trade and commerce. The petitioner-firms assessments for the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71 were duly completed under the Act on 21st January, 1970, 16th July, 1970, and 7th December, 1972, respectively. However, on or about 14th February, 1973, the petitioner-firm was served with notices under Sec.18(1) of the Act with respect to all the aforesaid three assessment years calling upon it to appear in the office of the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes with its books of account, etc., for a fresh hearing. On its application, the petitioner-firm was separately furnished with the grounds for starting the reassessment proceedings-vide annexure 3-wherein it was stated that the petitioner-firm had been allowed certain deductions in the original assessment orders which were not legal or permissible under Section 7(2)(b) of the Act and the proviso thereto.

3. Aggrieved by the initiation of the reassessment proceedings aforesaid, the petitioner-firm preferred three different writ applications challenging the same for the relevant years which were all admitted to hearing. When these cases originally came up for hearing before a Division Bench, it was strenuously contended on behalf of the petitioner that in order to initiate the proceedings for reassessment under Sec.18(1) of the Act, the "information" in possession of the prescribed authority must necessarily be external from the records of the original assessment. It was further contended that the mere discovery by the prescribed authority of something on the record that was already before him at the time when the earlier assessment orders were passed, cannot possibly warrant a reopening of the matter. Particular reliance was placed on the observations in Satya Narainji Mills case (C. W. J. C. No. 1400 of 1973 decided on 13th August, 1976-Patna High Court). However, on behalf of the respondent-revenue, firm reliance was placed on Anandji Haridas & Co. (P.) Ltd. V/s. S. P. Kushare, AIR 1968 SC 565 to controvert the stand of the writ petitioner. The Division Bench noticing some cleavage of judicial opinion on the point, referred the matter for consideration by a larger Bench and that is how the same is before us now.

4. As before the Division Bench, so before us, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bharuka, contended that Sec.18(1) of the Act visualises only such "information" which is extraneous or external to the original assessment proceedings and the same cannot possibly stem from the existing record itself. Primary reliance was placed on Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat V/s. A. Raman and Co., AIR 1968 SC 49 as also on the earlier observations in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa, AIR 1959 SC 257 and the subsequent case of Indian & Eastern Newspapers Society, New Delhi V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax, N