JUDGMENT :

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. B. Tripathi, learned Special counsel for the respondents-State.

2. Present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 07.03.2019 passed by Additional Commissioner, Grade-I, Commercial Tax, Varanasi Zone-I, Varanasi under Section 29(7) for reassessment for assessment year 2010-11 and notice dated 07.03.2019 issued by Joint Commissioner, (Corporate Circle), Commercial Tax, Varanasi Zone-I, Varanasi which had been issued in consequence of the order of authorisation.

3. According to petitioner the dispute relates to reassessment of assessment year 2010-11. Petitioner is registered proprietorship firm, and is involved in manufacture and sale of chemicals. According to petitioner the chemicals manufactured are commonly known as prepared driers and the same find place at Serial No. 134 of Part-C of Schedule 2 of Value Added Tax (in short 'VAT Act'). The said prepared driers are taxable at the rate of 4% from 01.01.2008. According to petitioner, the petitioner firm was assessed for assessment year 2008-09 and assessment order was passed on 22.10.2011, accepting the sale and tax at 4%. It was on 24.07.2013 that respondent no. 3 had issued a notice to petitioner firm regarding the taxability of prepared driers, which was replied on 25.08.2013 and the proceedings were, thereafter, dropped. According to petitioner assessment was made for the year 2010-11 and assessment order was passed on 13.01.2014 granting benefit to the firm that commodity sold by firm was prepared driers and was taxable under Item No. 134 of Schedule 2, Part-C. In the assessment year of 2011-12, the contention of the petitioner was also accepted as regards prepared driers manufactured and sold by petitioner firm and assessment order was passed on 23.07.2014.

4. According to petitioner, on 07.02.2019, respondent no. 2 exercising power under Sub-section 7 of Section 29 issued notice stating that the goods sold by the petitioner firm are liable to be taxed at the rate of 12.5% and stated that HSN Code 05000039 is for paints and varnishes of all kinds and all materials used in painting and varnishes, and prepared driers manufactured by petitioner was used only in manufacture of paint and varnishes, thus, it falls under the said HSN Code and accordingly 8.5% tax had been left to be imposed on the turnover of prepared driers and permission has been sought for reassessment. Petitioner appeared on the date fixed and filed his reply and submitted that original assessment order was passed after scrutiny of the records and no turnover was assessed to tax at lower rate and as such there was no occasion to grant permission for reassessment on basis of change of opinion. Respondent no. 2 exercising power under Section 29(7) passed the order of authorisation on 07.03.2019.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order authorising for reassessment amounts to change of opinion as the question of taxability was never in dispute and the same has been accepted even after recording finding on the same by taking note of HSN Code specially prescribed for prepared driers. He submitted that reassessment cannot be made on the same material which was subject-matter of the original assessment. He relied upon judgment of this Court in case of M/s Vikrant Tyres Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others, (2005) UPTC 501 that no reassessment can be made by same authority on the same material and if the same was permitted will open flood gate for arbitrary action exposing one to unending process, permitting uncertainty, reopening of closed chapters without assigning good reason, depending upon whims of individuals.

6. He further relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in case of State of U.P. vs. M/s Aryawart Chawal Udyog and others, 2017 UPTC 262 which is on the question of change of opinion. Relevant Para 30 is extracted hereasunder:-

"30. In case of there being a change of opinion, there must