JUDGMENT DR. R. R. MISRA, J. - For the assessment years 1974-75 to 1977-78, the assessee carried on business in foodgrains. At the time of original assessment in all these four years, the account books of the assessee were accepted. The assessee had, however, claimed that it is a firm registered under the Khadi and Village Industries Board, Bombay, and as such exempt from payment of tax under section 4-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), under a Notification dated 1st June, 1963. The assessing authority accepted the said claim of the assessee. Subsequently, however, proceedings under section 21 of the Act were initiated against the assessee on the ground that under the said notification exemption was allowed only on sales and not on purchases. Since the assessee was liable to pay tax on purchases as well as sales, assessments were framed against the assessee for the said years on the basis of its liability on purchases only. The same had been unsuccessfully challenged by the assessee before both the appellate authorities below. The sole point urged by the learned counsel for the assessee is that on the facts of this case no proceedings under section 21 of the Act could be initiated in the years in dispute because the said notification in question had already been considered by the assessing authority at the time of making of original assessment and by initiation of the proceedings under section 21 of the Act in effect it amounts to change of opinion which is not warranted under the law. As such, it is urged that the proceeding could not be validly initiated against the assessee under section 21 of the Act. The department, however, contended that in the present case at the time of framing of the original assessment, the Sales Tax Officer has not applied his mind at all to the question of taxability on purchases made by the assessee and as such it being a case of non-application of mind, the proceedings under section 21 were validly initiated. Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee, has laid great emphasis on the original assessment order under which a mention had been made of the said Notification dated 1st June, 1963. Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee, has laid great emphasis on the original assessment order under which a mention had been made of the said Notification dated 1st June, 1963. He, therefore, contends that the claim of the Revenue that this is a case of non-application of mind is wholly untenable as according to him since in the earlier part of the assessment order relevant details of purchases and sales both have been set out, therefore, it is apparent that the assessee was granted exemption in the said order dated 25th September, 1978, on application of mind and it was a case of change of opinion. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the decisions in the cases of Madhuri Das Narain Das v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. 1988 STJ 19, Prakash Paper House v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. 1987 UPTC 664, Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. J.J. Enterprises 1981 ATJ 334, Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Dwarica Das Varun Kumar 1979 UPTC 1152 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Madhu Chemical Works [1988] 71 STC 421 (All.); 1988 UPTC 230. In the case of Madhuri Das Narain Das 1988 STJ 19, it was found that at the time of passing of the assessment order under rule 41(5) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, the Sales Tax Officer has applied his mind to the question of applicability of rate to the disputed sale. Therefore, it was held that it was a case of change of opinion. In the case of Prakash Paper House 1987 UPTC 664, the decision rested on the basis of peculiar facts of that case in which it was found that there was no material on record whatsoever for the Sales Tax Officer to have come to the conclusion that the turnover had escaped assessment. This case, therefore, was not a case of change of opinion. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. J.J. Enterprises 1981 ATJ 834 it was found that the assessing authority had applied his mind to this aspect of the case and then gave his decision. Therefore, it was held that subsequently no proceedings under section 21 of the Act could be taken as it was so done by the Sales Tax Department as a result of change of opinion only. Therefore, it was held that subsequently no proceedings under section 21 of the Act could be taken as it was so done by the Sales Tax Department as a result of change of opinion only. The case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Dwarica Das Varun Kumar 1979 UPTC 1152, was also a case of change of opinion as is clear from the said report of the judgment. In the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Madhu Chemical Works [1988] 71 STC 421 (All.); 1988 UPTC 230, the principle laid down is that if it is a case of change of opinion, no proceedings could be initiated under section 21 of the Act but if it is a case of non-application of mind then certainly an action would be justified under section 21 of the Act. Sri Vijay Manohar Sahai, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, has submitted that the principle of change of opinion will be applicable only when there is a formation of opinion at the time of making of the original assessment. In case no opinion at all had been formed by application of mind, there arises no question of applying the principle of change of opinion in such a situation. Since all the original assessment orders for each of the four years in dispute were passed on 25th September, 1978, and were similarly worded, the learned Standing Counsel relies on the relevant portion from one of the assessment orders. The same is as follows : "Gat warsh 1973-74 mein uprokt sahkari samiti (registered) ki khadi village industries kamisan bambai dwara manyata prapta hone ke karan vigyapti san. S.T. 2783/X-902(60)/59 dinank 1.6.63 ke antargat kar mukt kiya gaya hai. Atah alochya warshon ketu bhi uprokt adhar par vyapari ki kar mukt kiya jata hai." He, therefore, submits that from a close reading of the original assessment order dated 25th September, 1978, it is evident that the Sales Tax Officer had not at all formed his opinion on the question of taxability on purchases. Rather, on the other hand, the said officer had been led away by the mere fact that in the said Notification dated 1st June, 1963, since the assessee was allowed exemption in the year 1973-74, he is entitled to the grant of exemption for the year in dispute also and he allowed the same accordingly. Rather, on the other hand, the said officer had been led away by the mere fact that in the said Notification dated 1st June, 1963, since the assessee was allowed exemption in the year 1973-74, he is entitled to the grant of exemption for the year in dispute also and he allowed the same accordingly. Elaborating his submission, learned Standing Counsel states that whatever was the position in the assessment year 1973-74, the same was only followed by the Sales Tax Officer without applying his mind in the assessment order for the assessment year 1973-74, in this Court. Hence, it is not clear whether in the assessment year 1973-74, the Sales Tax Officer concerned had at all applied his mind to the question of taxability on purchases. At the same time it is amply clear from the extract quoted above, that during the years in dispute the Sales Tax Officer had, while granting exemption to the assessee on the purchases, not applied his mind to the question of grant of exemption on purchases. Learned Standing Counsel in support of his submission has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Steel Engineering Corporation [1981] 48 STC 432. In this case it has been held that no action under section 21 of the Act can be taken as a result of second thought or change of opinion. But if it was not so, then it would be a case of non-application of mind and certainly the action would be justified. On the facts of that case, it was held that in regard to the levy of tax at a lesser rate proceedings under section 21 of the Act were justified. The same principle has later on been relied on by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Madhu Chemical Works [1988] 71 STC 421; 1988 UPTC 230 as already stated above. The other decision relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel is the case of Madras High Court in Bharat Refineries Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1982] 49 STC 134. It has been held in that case that the assessing authority will have jurisdiction to reopen an assessment so long as some turnover has escaped assessment. The other decision relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel is the case of Madras High Court in Bharat Refineries Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1982] 49 STC 134. It has been held in that case that the assessing authority will have jurisdiction to reopen an assessment so long as some turnover has escaped assessment. If by taking a wrong view in respect of a particular item of turnover it is exempted from assessment, then to the extent that the turnover has escaped assessment, proceedings for reassessment could be initiated against the assessee. Therefore, on an examination of the aforesaid authorities cited at the Bar by both the sides, the principle that emerges is that if the Sales Tax Officer had, at the time of the making of original assessment, applied his mind to the taxability on purchases, it will be a case of change of opinion and in the absence thereof it will be a case of non-application of mind. From a perusal of the impugned consolidated order dated 10th June, 1987, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal in regard to all the four assessment years in dispute, I find that the parties were at issue on this particular aspect of the matter and the Tribunal has on an examination of all the facts and circumstances of the case recorded a finding of fact as under : "The notification did not allow any exemption on purchases. Granting exemption under this notification in the circumstances of the present case amounts to non-application of mind and in the circumstances of the case it does not amount to change of opinion." The above finding recorded by the Tribunal that the exemption was granted by the Sales Tax Officer at the time of making of the original assessment due to non-application of mind is a finding of fact which is binding on the High Court. Learned counsel for the assessee has not addressed the Court as to how the said finding recorded by the Tribunal is vitiated in law in any manner whatsoever. In view of the aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal, the case has to be proceeded on the basis as if at the time of making of the original assessment, the Sales Tax Officer had not applied his mind to the question of levying tax on purchases or granting exemption in that regard. In view of the aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal, the case has to be proceeded on the basis as if at the time of making of the original assessment, the Sales Tax Officer had not applied his mind to the question of levying tax on purchases or granting exemption in that regard. In this view of the matter and on the basis of the principle of law enunciated above, in my opinion, the Sales Tax Tribunal was right in law in upholding the framing of the assessment proceedings under section 21 of the Act for the years in dispute. In doing so, the Tribunal has, to my mind, committed no error of law. No other point was pressed. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 200 (rupees two hundred only). Petitions dismissed.