The Revising Authority, Varanasi, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court :

" (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dealer was liable to tax under section 3-D (2) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act in respect of the sales of foodgrains made by him on behalf of his ex-U. P. principals ?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act has rightly been applied ?"

The first question is concluded by the decision given in Commissioner of 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 whether section 21 permits this to be done ? Section 21, at the relevant point of time, read :

" 21. (1) If the assessing authority has reason to believe that the whole or any part of the turnover of a dealer has, for any reason, escaped assessment to tax for any year, the assessing authority may, after issuing notice to the dealer, and making such inquiry as may be necessary, assess or reassess his to tax :

Provided that the tax shall be charged at the rate at which it would have been charged had the turnover not escaped assessment, or full assessment, as the case may be.

Explanation.- Nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to prevent the assessing authority from making an assessment to the best of its judgment. "

Unlike section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, section 21 does not detail the specific grounds on which the assessing authority has to form a reasonable belief as required by this section. Sri V. D. Singh, the standing counsel, urged that an assessment can be reopened under section 21 for any reason, including one where the Sales Tax Officer finds that the view taken by him on a question of fact or law at the time of the original assessment was erroneous. There is no direct decision of this Court on the point. There are, however, some cases which shed light on the controversy.

In Suwa Lal Pooran Mal v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. , Lucknow ([1963] 14 S. T. C. 456), the assessee had disclosed a turnover of Rs. 1,10,000 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 necessary that there should be fresh information on the basis of which an order under section 21 could be made. It is not clear from this decision as to whether the Sales Tax Officer had considered the taxability of the turnover of Rs. 1,10,000 on merits as in the present case. This distinction, however, is not sufficient to by-pass the law laid down in this case, for, this case lays down that the language of section 21 was very w