By the Court.—Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The pleadings exchanged between the parties have also been perused.

3. The petitioner is carrying business of purchase and sale of non ferrous metal scraps, utensil etc. and is registered both under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the VAT Act) as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Sales Tax Act).

4. The petitioner was assessed under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act vide order dated 21.5.2012 for the assessment year 2008-09 (Central). In the said assessment apart from other things the petitioner was exempted from tax in respect of consignment sale/stock transfer against Form-F.

5. One of the Form-F in connection with which tax exemption was granted was Form No. 03Q-600527 which was said to have been issued to the petitioner by the consignee agent M/s. Ram Badra Sales Agency, New Delhi.

6. The Additional Commissioner Commercial Tax vide the impugned order dated 24.9.2015 has granted permission under Section 29(7) of the VAT Act to the Assessing Authority to reassess the petitioner for the above assessment year.

7. Consequently a notice to participate in the reassessment proceedings has been issued by the assessing authority on 11.1.2016.

8. The above order granting permission to reopen the assessment and the consequential notice thereof are under challenge in the present petition.

9. The permission to reopen the assessment has been granted only for the reason that one of the Forms-F No. 03Q-600527 issued by the consignee agent M/s. Ram Badra Sales Agency, New Delhi was reported to be fake/furzi and was not issued by the department to the said consignee agent rather to some other dealer and as such the exemption of tax granted on its basis to the petitioner appears to have escaped assessment.

10. The argument is that the petitioner is a bona fide registered dealer and he has no role in the issuance of the said Form-F. The said Form-F is not fake/furzi. It is not the case of the department that it was not been issued by it. Both the consignee agent and the petitioner are registered dealers and there is no finding that they are in collusion. In such circumstances, even if the said Form-F is said to have been misused the entire responsibility would rest upon the consignee agent and the tax exemption granted to the petitioner would remain unaffected. The petitioner is not supposed to make a rowing enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the said Form and since he has acted bonafidely on its basis, it is not a case where any permission for reassessment could have been granted. Moreover, in granting the permission the objections of the petitioner have not been considered.

11. Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that under Section 29(7) of the VAT Act, the Additional Commissioner is only supposed to grant permission for the reopening of the assessment if it is beyond the prescribed period of limitation. In granting such permission he may not necessarily look into each and every aspect of the objection in detail and mere recording of his satisfaction that it is a fit case for reassessment even is sufficient. The Assessing Authority was possessed of sufficient material in the form of letter of the Joint Commissioner Special Investigation Branch Commercial Tax for the formation of opinion as to the reason to believe for reassessment.

12. In short the controversy herein this petition is whether the Additional Commissioner is justified in granting permission under Section 29(7) of the VAT Act to the Assessing Authority to reassess the petitioner under the above facts and circumstances of the case.

13. Section 29(1) of the VAT Act authorises the Assessing Authority to assess or reassess a dealer to tax acco