JUDGMENT A. K. YOG, J. - All respondents are represented through Standing Counsel and that since the arguments raised at the Bar require no enquiry on facts, we proceed to decide writ petition finally, without calling for counter and rejoinder affidavits, at admission stage as contemplated under Chapter XXII, rule 2, Rules of court. These writ petitions relate to three assessment years as follows : |------------------|----------------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------| |1. Writ Petition | A.Y. 1998-99 | Arising from impugned order dated | Annexure 10 | | No. | | February 25, 2005 under section | to the W.P. | | 455 of 2005 | | 21(2), U.P. Trade Tax Act for reassessment | | | | | passed by Additional Commissioner, Trade Tax. | | |------------------|----------------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------| |2. Writ Petition | A.Y. 1999-2000 | do. | annexure 4 | | No. | | | to W.P. | | 456 of 2005 | | | | |------------------|----------------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------| |3. Writ Petition | A.Y. 2001-02 | do. | annexure 4 | | No. | | | to the W.P. | | 457 of 2005 | | | | |------------------|----------------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------| M/s. Vikrant Tyres Limited, (the petitioner) being aggrieved against orders dated February 25, 2005 (as indicated above) passed by Additional Commissioner, Grade 1, Trade Tax, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur, under section 21(2), U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 ("the Act") has approached this court by filing present writ petitions under article 226, Constitution of India. The three writ petitions based on similar facts, raise common question of law and hence decided together by common judgment. Facts, as borne out from the record of Writ Petition No. 455 of 2005, necessary for deciding above petitions, are as under : Petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and also registered as "dealer" under the Act. During aforementioned assessment years, it sold tyres and tubes used in "cart" as animal driven vehicles. The Commissioner, Trade Tax, vide circular dated April 1, 1992/annexure 5 to the writ petition held that tyres/tubes used in animal driven vehicles were exempt from trade tax. The assessing officer, with respect to the aforementioned assessment years, allowed exemption from trade tax on the sale of tyres and tubes used in "cart" - as animal driven vehicle (ADV). The Commissioner, Trade Tax, vide circular dated April 1, 1992/annexure 5 to the writ petition held that tyres/tubes used in animal driven vehicles were exempt from trade tax. The assessing officer, with respect to the aforementioned assessment years, allowed exemption from trade tax on the sale of tyres and tubes used in "cart" - as animal driven vehicle (ADV). The Additional Commissioner, Grade-1, Trade Tax, Kanpur Zone/respondent issued notice dated February 9, 2005, annexure 8 to the writ petition, informing the petitioner that the assessing officer/Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax, Kanpur, had asked for permission for initiating reassessment proceedings under section 21(2) of the Act. The said notice further referred to certain notifications with regard to exemption from trade tax on animal driven vehicle/cart with or without tyre and tube. The Additional Commissioner further stated that keeping in mind that earlier in the relevant notification expression "tyre/tube" was mentioned against the article called "cart" and since the words "tyre/tube", etc., were deleted sub-sequently by another Government notification, no exemption could be granted and trade tax at the rate of 10 per cent was leviable on "tyre/tube" sold by the petitioner in the assessment years in question. The petitioner submitted his explanation/objection on February 14, 2005/annexure 9 to the writ petition. The said objection referred to relevant entries in different notifications and contended that expression "cart" read with other expressions in the relevant notifications, viz., "parts, accessories and attachment thereof" leave no scope for ambiguity and clearly included in it "tyre and tube" as part/attachment of cart - used as ADV mentioned in the list of "agricultural implement" in the relevant notification; particularly Gazette notification dated January 31, 1985 and Gazette notification dated June 30, 1986 (annexures 3 and 4 to the writ petition, respectively). The Additional Commissioner, however, did not find favour with the aforesaid objection of the petitioner and passed impugned orders dated February 25, 2005/annexure 10 to the writ petition, and similarly in respect of other assessment years, as noted above, holding initiation of reassessment valid. Hence the above writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated February 25, 2005 suffers from error apparent on the face of record inasmuch as the order passed by the Additional Commissioner does not satisfy requirement of section 21 of the Act. Hence the above writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated February 25, 2005 suffers from error apparent on the face of record inasmuch as the order passed by the Additional Commissioner does not satisfy requirement of section 21 of the Act. The Additional Commissioner, before resorting to exercise of powers under section 21(2) of the Act, (i.e., before granting permission to the assessing officer to initiate reassessment proceedings), ought to have recorded some good and relevant reason to show that said authority was satisfied that it was just and expedient so to do. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that mere mention of fact that there is possibility of change of opinion, bereft of good and valid reason, is not a sufficient ground. Merely expressing apprehension on possibility of change of opinion in the absence of cogent reasons, shows non-application of mind and cannot justify reopening of assessment as it will lead to arbitrary exercise of power and unsettle things for ever without an acceptable excuse. Learned counsel for the respondents, Sri K. M. Sahai, Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that section 21(2) of the Act clearly lays down that when matter is referred by assessing officer, reasons are to be recorded by said assessing officer and that is sufficient compliance under law for initiating reassessment proceedings. In order to appreciate respective contentions/arguments, the scope, extent and nature of the order to be passed by the Additional Commissioner for initiating reassessment proceedings, reference may be made to section 21(1) and (2) of the Act, which is, for convenience, quoted below : "(1) If the assessing authority has reason to believe that the whole or any part of the turnover of the dealer, for any assessment year or part thereof, has escaped assessment to tax or has been under - assessed or has been assessed to tax at a rate lower than that at which it is assessable under this Act, or any deductions or exemptions have been wrongly allowed in respect thereof, the assessing authority may, after issuing notice to the dealer and making such inquiry as it may consider necessary, assess or reassess the dealer or tax according to law : Provided ... Explanation I ... Explanation II ... Explanation III ... Explanation I ... Explanation II ... Explanation III ... (2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no order of assessment or reassessment under any provision of this Act for any assessment year shall be made after the expiration of two years from the end of such year or March 31, 1998, whichever is later : Provided that if the Commissioner on his own or on the basis of reasons recorded by the assessing authority, is satisfied that it is just and expedient so to do, authorises, the assessing authority in that behalf, such assessment or reassessment may be made after the expiration of the period aforesaid but not after the expiration of six years from the end of such year or March 31, 2002, whichever is later notwithstanding that such assessment or reassessment may involve a change of opinion : Provided ... Provided ... Provided ..." Section 21(1) of the Act lays down that where the assessing authority has reason to believe that whole or any part of "turnover" of the dealer for any assessment year has escaped assessment to tax and any deduction or exemption has been wrongly allowed in respect thereof, the said assessing authority may, after issuing notice to the dealer and making enquiry, as it may consider necessary, reassess such dealer or tax according to law. It means before the assessing authority comes to the conclusion that a case to initiate reassessment proceedings is made out, the assessing authority must record reasons after giving notice and opportunity to the dealer to justify that any one or more ground given in this section exists. The fact that decision to initiate reassessment proceedings can be taken after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the dealer, shows that the assessing authority has to act judiciously and it cannot act arbitrarily or upon whims, i.e., without disclosing ground acceptable in law. The assessing officer has to justify "reassessment" on a ground covered under section 21(1), and it must not be opposed to good conscience, fair play and public policy. Reassessment on the same material by the same authority, if permitted, for no valid reason, will open the floodgate for arbitrary action exposing one to unending process, permitting uncertainty, reopening of closed chapters without assigning good reason, depending upon whims of individuals and in the end precipitating anomalous situations. Reassessment on the same material by the same authority, if permitted, for no valid reason, will open the floodgate for arbitrary action exposing one to unending process, permitting uncertainty, reopening of closed chapters without assigning good reason, depending upon whims of individuals and in the end precipitating anomalous situations. It, therefore, naturally follows that there has to be some valid ground, viz., some relevant document or material having escaped notice or there has been wrong calculation due to human error bona fide committed, or ignorance of correct and complete facts due to mistake or ignorance or fraud/misrepresentation (but not mere change of opinion on same material). Proviso to section 21(2) of the Act contemplates that the Additional Commissioner can suo motu, on his own motion, direct assessing authority to initiate reassessment proceeding. Proviso attached to section 21(2) of the Act qualifies power/jurisdiction to initiate suo motu action by adding "he is satisfied that it is just and expedient so to do ...". When assessing officer refers a matter, recommending reassessment the Commissioner has before him, reasons recorded by the said assessing authority after giving notice to the dealer. When suo motu action is proposed by the Commissioner, then there are no reasons on record by the assessing authority, therefore, the Commissioner, under the said provision, must record his satisfaction that it is just and expedient to permit reassessment. It will ensure that such action is not arbitrary or on whims. This reflects upon the nature of the jurisdiction and fully ensures that it is not exercised on whims or arbitrarily and that a good ground, sustainable in law, exists on record to justify reassessment. In the light of the above, we may examine as to whether the impugned orders dated February 25, 2005 passed by the Commissioner contain reasons recorded after application of mind, which must provide justiciable ground to initiate reassessment proceedings. In the impugned orders, it is asserted that on perusing the recommendation by the Deputy Commissioner/assessing authority and objection filed by the dealer, it was possible to change opinion. There is no mention that the assessing authority was ignorant of a particular material or information which escaped his notice. Mere apprehension or passing reference - that there is possibility of change of opinion, is not sufficient ground under law to confer authority upon the Commissioner to direct the assessing authority to initiate reassessment proceedings. There is no mention that the assessing authority was ignorant of a particular material or information which escaped his notice. Mere apprehension or passing reference - that there is possibility of change of opinion, is not sufficient ground under law to confer authority upon the Commissioner to direct the assessing authority to initiate reassessment proceedings. As already noted above, section 21(2) of the Act does not give blanket or arbitrary power or jurisdiction to the Commissioner for granting permission to the assessing authority for initiating reassessment proceedings. Above conclusion of ours is fortified by the division Bench decision of this court in the case of Palco Lining Company v. State of U.P. [1983] 54 STC 255 (All); [1983] UPTC 1116. Relevant para 15 of the said judgment reads : "15. In the view that we have taken in the case on its merits it is really not necessary for us to go into the question whether reassessment proceedings could be justified in the present case. However, we may observe that irrespective of the amplitude of the language used in section 21 of the Act, reassessment proceedings are not permissible on mere change of opinion by the taxing authority at a subsequent stage. The petitioners are right in their submission that issuance of a notice under section 21 of the Act in the present cases was without authority of law." In the case of Raton Industries (Pvt.) Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Trade Tax, Agra [2006] 148 STC 111 (All); [2004] UPTC 347 (All), another division Bench of this court, vide para 22 observed : "It is a well-settled principle of law that the question which has been examined in detail in the original assessment proceedings and thereafter the assessment order has been passed, then the said assessment order cannot be reopened under section 21 of the Act on mere change of opinion." Again in para 37 the court observed : "In the case of Royal Trading Co. [2000] UPTC 642, it has been held by a division Bench that no reassessment proceedings can be legally taken, even if an authorisation has been given under section 21(2) by the Commissioner, Trade Tax, if no cogent material was there to form a reasonable belief as required under section 21(1) itself." Taking similar view, another division Bench of this court in the case of Shyam Babu Vaishya & Co. v. Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, Khand-2, Banda [2005] 139 STC 397 (All); [2004] UPTC 210, referred to the case of Kalpana Kala Kendra v. Sales Tax Officer [1989] 75 STC 198 (All); [1989] UPTC 597, and observed : "Section 21 of the Act is based upon the theory that the taxes must be paid by the assessee in correct sum and likewise it must be collected by the statutory machinery. The escapement from assessment whether it results on account of a concealment practised fraud played by the assessee or as a result of negligence or ignorance of the assessing authority, in our opinion, is of no consequence, provided the action to reopen the assessment is otherwise justified a the assessing officer is not acting arbitrarily or in a capricious manner The escapement of assessment contemplated under that section may be due to various reasons. The terms 'turnover has escaped assessment to tax', which includes under - assessment, may as well be a result of lack of care on the part of the assessing officer or by reason of inadvertence on his part. Section 21 does not prohibit obtaining of information from the investigation of material on the record of the original assessment. The scope of that section is not circumscribed by a rider like the one that exists in section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, namely, the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year. The escapement envisaged by section 21 of the Act for the purposes of reassessment need not necessarily spring from a source extraneous to the original record." In the aforesaid case of Shyam Babu Vaishya & Co. [2005] 139 STC 397; [2004] UPTC 210, this court had concluded that there was material before the respondent - authorities to prima facie show that there was both concealment by the petitioner as well as negligence and ignorance on the part of the assessing officer and in that view of the matter the court refused to interfere with the order directing reassessment. In the instant case, we find no such mention or even a whisper in the impugned order dated February 25, 2005 or in the notice given by the Additional Commissioner dated February 9, 2005/annexure 8 to the writ petition and hence the impugned order cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed. The cases should have been normally remitted back to the concerned authority to pass fresh order under section 21 of the Act, if so advised, in accordance with law. Since relevant notifications have been annexed with the writ petition and learned counsels for the parties have agreed that issue - "whether exemption granted earlier by the assessing authority was proper and just and in accordance with notification" depends upon the interpretation of these notifications, (without dispute on facts) hence this court may itself decide the same. According to the learned counsels for the parties it may be embarrassing for the Government authority/respondent to interpret its notifications against it and hence failure to act impartially. Consequently, we proceed to decide the question. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to U.P. Gazettes, relevant extract of which reads : "I. U.P. Gazette, dated January 30, 1982 (annexure 1 to W.P.). Whereas, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers under section 4 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No. XV of 1948), read with section 25 of the aforesaid Act and section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1904), the Governor is pleased to make, with effect from September 7, 1981, the following amendment in Government Notification No. ST-911/X dated March 31, 1956 : AMENDMENT. - For item No. 1 of List II of the aforesaid notification, the following shall be substituted, namely : '1. Agricultural implements worked by human or animal power, ... animal driven vehicles including carts having pneumatic tyre-wheels and tyres and tubes thereof, crow bars, sugarcane planter's and accessories, attachments and spare parts of these agricultural implements'." II. - For item No. 1 of List II of the aforesaid notification, the following shall be substituted, namely : '1. Agricultural implements worked by human or animal power, ... animal driven vehicles including carts having pneumatic tyre-wheels and tyres and tubes thereof, crow bars, sugarcane planter's and accessories, attachments and spare parts of these agricultural implements'." II. U.P. Gazette, dated January 31, 1985 (annexure 3 to W.P.) In exercise of the powers under clause (a) of section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 (U.P. Act No. XV of 1948), read with section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1904), and in supersession of all previous notifications issued under the aforesaid clause (a) of section 4, the Governor is pleased to exempt, with effect from February 1, 1985, the goods mentioned in column 2 of Schedule hereunder from payment of tax under the said Act of 1948, subject to the conditions, if any, specified in column 3 thereof : 1. Agricultural implements and parts, accessories and attachments thereof, as per details given below : "A - Ordinary agricultural implements ... B - Animal - drawn agricultural implements : Yoke, plough, harrow, cultivator or triphali, seed drill, fertilizer drill, seed-cum-fertilizer drill, planter, plank or float, leveller or scoop, ridger, ditcher, bund former, thresher or palla, transplanter, chaff-cutter, persian - wheel and bucket, chain or washer chain, cart, reaper, mower, sugarcane crusher, cane juice boiling pan and grating roller. C. - Tractor - drawn agricultural implements : ... D. - ..." III. U.P. Gazette dated June 30, 1986 - annexure 4 to W.P. Amendment. - In the Schedule to the aforesaid notification, for the existing entries in column 2 against serial No. 1, the following shall be substituted :- "1. Agricultural implements and parts, accessories and attachments thereof, as per details given below :- A. - Agricultural implements worked by human or animal power. - ... Carts ... B. - Tractor - drawn or power driven implements :- ditcher, cage, wheel, sprayer, duster or sprayer ... or mower." The petitioner submits, that certain doubts having arisen in the matter, M/s. Metro Tyre Limited filed application for clarification of these very notifications. The department clarified that tyre and tube in that case (similar to the present case of the petitioner) were exempt. or mower." The petitioner submits, that certain doubts having arisen in the matter, M/s. Metro Tyre Limited filed application for clarification of these very notifications. The department clarified that tyre and tube in that case (similar to the present case of the petitioner) were exempt. Decision of the department on the said application of M/s. Metro Tyre Limited is annexure 6 to the writ petition; relevant extract of which reads : Matter In Hindi. Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to support his contention, referred to the notification dated June 30, 1986 and argued that the articles/items which have been accorded exemption from tax are mentioned in the list attached to the said notification. Article "cart" is in category "A" comprising of agricultural implements. According to him, all relevant expressions in the notification be read together; and article "cart" cannot be read in isolation in Sl. No. 1, Column 2 of the said notification; relevant expressions - "Agricultural implements and parts, accessories and attachments thereof ..." The petitioner, invited the court to read relevant expressions together in the notification thus, the relevant contents of the "notification" shall read - "Cart and parts, accessories and attachment thereof". Admittedly, cart is an agricultural implement. On behalf of the respondent, learned Standing Counsel submitted that deletion of the words "tyre/tube and pneumatic tyre" shows the intention to exclude carts with tyre/tube from exemption. We are unable to accept the argument made on behalf of the respondents for more than one reason. Deletion of words explanation in statutory provision does not always indicate that "Legislature" or its propounder intends to exclude something to provide for negative scope. On a given occasion, redundant or superfluous words/expressions which are redundant or likely to cause ambiguity, are deleted with no consequence. In the case of R.D. Ram Nath & Co. v. Girdhari Lal [1975] ALJ 1 (DB), in paras 9 and 10, this court, while dealing with deletion of certain Explanation in U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, observed : "9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff - respondents, however, brought to our notice the fact that section 39 as stood initially contained an Explanation which reads 'In this section and in section 40', the expression date of commencement of this Act, in relation to a building, means 'the date on which this Act becomes applicable to that building'. Learned counsel for the plaintiff - respondents, however, brought to our notice the fact that section 39 as stood initially contained an Explanation which reads 'In this section and in section 40', the expression date of commencement of this Act, in relation to a building, means 'the date on which this Act becomes applicable to that building'. It was pointed out that the aforesaid Explanation was omitted by section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act No. 37 of 1972). It was urged that in view of the Explanation it was possible to give a wider meaning to section 39 and by the circumstance that the legislature subsequently omitted the Explanation it must be inferred that its intention was not to give wider meaning to the words 'commencement of this Act' in section 39. We are, however, unable to agree with the submission. 10. In Rihta Co-operative Development and Cane Marketing Union Ltd. v. Bank of Bihar, it was held : 'The Explanation must be read so as to harmonise with and clear up any ambiguity in the main section. In our opinion in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Manickchand's case, it cannot be said that there was any ambiguity in section 39 which required any Explanation so as to harmonise and clear up the said ambiguity. The Legislature must have considered the Explanation as superfluous and omitted it on that score. We perused the statement of objects and reasons contained in the Bill of the amending Act aforesaid but it rendered no assistance on the point whatsoever. In our opinion, therefore, the fact that the Explanation was subsequently omitted is not of any consequence'." Expression "cart" is defined in "Oxford Advanced Learner's Encyclopedic Dictionary" as follows : "Cart vehicle with two or four wheels used for carrying loads and usually pulled by a horse." The above definition of "cart" shows that "wheels" are essential part and a prominent feature. Again expression "wheel" includes all kinds of wheels, viz., wooden/steel wheel with or without rubber collar on it and/or with tyre and tube or pneumatic tyre. It is not possible to imagine a cart which has no wheel. Again expression "wheel" includes all kinds of wheels, viz., wooden/steel wheel with or without rubber collar on it and/or with tyre and tube or pneumatic tyre. It is not possible to imagine a cart which has no wheel. If cart is in the category of agricultural implements, namely, falling under list of agricultural implements mentioned in aforesaid Gazette notification dated June 30, 1986, "cart" undisputedly an agricultural implement in the notification in question, by necessary implication, includes as its part "wheel" with "tyre and tube". The words "parts, accessories and attachment thereof" in the notification indicate, in unambiguous terms, that even a part of "cart" used as an agricultural implement is extended exemption. The petitioner rightly contends that notification be read as a whole and the relevant expressions have to be read together to gather correct meaning as otherwise it will be against the accepted rule of interpretation, viz., a statute or relevant provision must be read as a whole and in the light of its reference and context. The above observation is fully fortified by the ratio decidendi laid down in Government of Tamil Nadu v. Pv. Enter. Rep. By SCM Jamuludeen [2000] JT (Suppl. 3) SC 442 and Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana [1990] 76 STC 71 (SC); [1990] 2 SCC 71, wherein the apex court held that literal construction is to be avoided if it defeats the manifest object. In Gopal Reddy, S. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1996] 4 SCC 596, the honourable Supreme Court has held : "it is a well-known rule of interpretation of statutes that the text and the contents of the entire Act must be looked into while interpreting any of the expressions used in the statute. The court must look to the object which the statute seeks to achieve. ... A purposive approach for interpreting the Act is necessary ..." Learned counsel for the respondents, however, on the other hand drew our notice to the Gazette notification dated January 30, 1982 (quoted above) wherein the relevant expression used is "Animal driven vehicle including cart having pneumatic tyre-wheels and tyres and tubes thereof". An attempt is made to demonstrate that in subsequent notifications dated January 31, 1985 and June 30, 1986, words "pneumatic tyre-wheels and tyres and tubes thereof" have been deleted and do not find mention. An attempt is made to demonstrate that in subsequent notifications dated January 31, 1985 and June 30, 1986, words "pneumatic tyre-wheels and tyres and tubes thereof" have been deleted and do not find mention. The argument is that aforesaid deletion/exclusion of "pneumatic tyre-wheels and tyres and tubes thereof" indicates intent and deliberate action of the Government not to extend benefit of exemption of tax on turnover of tyre and tube even if used in agricultural implement. We are unable to accept this interpretation. We find that the words "tyre, tube and pneumatic tyre" in the notification tend to give rise to ambiguity and is otherwise redundant. The notification dated January 30, 1982 with the use of these words could be stretched to mean that only a "cart" which had "tyre/tube or pneumatic tyres" was entitled for exemption. Converse of it meant a "cart" which had wheels other than tyre/tube, pneumatic tyre and even though used as an agricultural implement otherwise as is commonly used in India by agricultural community as part of conventional agricultural implements was excluded from exemptions. Apparently this could not be the intention and that too visibly for no good reason pointed out before us. To interpret the notification in a manner which would certainly run contrary to the prima facie object and intention to grant exemption to tyre and tube used as part of agricultural implement (i.e., "cart"), cannot be accepted. Moreover, we find no apparent or reasonable ground, with reference to the object and purpose, for creating a distinction between a "cart" which has wheel (with tyre, tube pneumatic tyre) and one which does not have such tyre-tube, when referred to an "agricultural implement". The view taken by us is also in consonance with the view taken by the respondent in the case of Metro Tyres Limited (referred to above). We, therefore, hold that the exemption granted to the petitioner in respect of tyre and tube, which is undoubtedly a "part" of "cart" used as agricultural implement, on alleged pretext of change of opinion by the assessing authority, does not justify reassessment and no case is made, in the facts of instant cases, to warrant exercise of reassessment by the respondents under section 21 of the Act. In the result, the impugned orders dated February 25, 2005/annexure 10 in W.P. No. 455 of 2005 (assessment year 1998-99), annexure 4 in W.P. No. 456 of 2005 (assessment year 1999-2000), annexure 4 in W.P. No. 457 of 2005 (assessment year 2001-02) and consequent notices are set aside. Writ petitions stand allowed. No order as to costs.