ORDER 1. These are two appeals filed by the appellant against an order dated 17.7.93 passed by the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (NZ)-cum-First Appellate Authority, Palampur vide which he has dismissed two appeals filed before him by the appellant against re-assessment orders for the years 1983-84 and 84-85 passed on 16.1.1988 by the Assessing authority Nurpur creating an additional demand of Rs.49,088 and 14,139 against him for the said years respectively. The appeals were filed on the grounds that no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the appellant and that no new facts which were not available at the time of original assessment had come before the Assessing authority and so the matter did not come within the ambit of Section 15(1) of the H.P. GST Act, 1968. It was also claimed that concessional rate of tax had been allowed on production of form "D" vide notification dated 15.1.85 and the partial amendment made in the same being procedural should be effective from 2.7.78 i.e. the date of the original notification. 2. The present appeals have been filed before this court on the grounds as raised before the first appellate court. 3. The record of the case was perused and counsel for the parties heard. Counsel for the appellant has also filed written submissions, which have been taken on record. 4. Counsel for the appellant argued that the assessee was registered with the department of Industries as a small scale unit and under the notification of 10.7.1968 issued under the HP GST Act, 1968 the rate of sales tax was 1% for the first 5 years of going into production and 2% for the next 5 years. Concessional rate of tax was also applicable for being charged in respect of CST as per the 1978 notification. Requirement of submission of Form-D for availing the concessional rate was included In the classificatory notification of 15.1.1985 and this had to be considered as applicable w.e.f. 1978. It was further argued that without any notice or appropriate hearing the re-assessment proceedings had been taken up for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 and a brief and sketchy orders were passed on 16.1.1988 creating additional demand of Rs.38,875/- on account of tax for these two years and Rs.24,353/- on account of interest. It was further argued that without any notice or appropriate hearing the re-assessment proceedings had been taken up for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 and a brief and sketchy orders were passed on 16.1.1988 creating additional demand of Rs.38,875/- on account of tax for these two years and Rs.24,353/- on account of interest. Order of the Assessing Authority was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 17.7.1993 taking the stand that the income of rate of tax had been applied while passing the assessment orders for 1983-84 and 1984-85 and the re-assessment order was only correcting this error. The Assessing Authority gaining knowledge about the correct rate of tax applicable did not amount to definite information which was not there at the time of framing original assessment and therefore reopening of the case by way of reassessment proceedings was legally not in order. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the re-assessment order was illegal as it was based on change of opinion. The entire record was available with the Assessing Authority and the notifications regarding rate of tax were also there as these had been published in the official gazette. Appreciation of legal provisions could not be said to be a definite information as required for framing of re-assessment. 5. On merits it has been argued that the notification dated 10.7.1978 provided for reduced rate of tax to be charged under the HP GST Act, 1968 as well as under the CST Act. By virtue of Section 8(2A) the dealer was liable to be taxed at lower rate as being provided under the State Act. Such clarification had also been issued by the Government through circular dated 8.9.1997. Besides, upto the financial year 2002 submission of C& I) forms was not mandatory in the case where the tax rate was lower than 4%. It has further been stressed that this Court had also decided the issue of application of the lower rates under CST when the lower rates were provided for under the State Act in the cases decided earlier relating to M/s Paras Minerals and Chemicals and M/s Snow White Paints, Solan. 6. The following case law has been cited to buttress the point that in the absence of fresh material no subsequent assessment could be made by the Assessing Authority;- (1) (2003) 133 STC 147 (A.P.) Kankadurga Manure Works Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. 6. The following case law has been cited to buttress the point that in the absence of fresh material no subsequent assessment could be made by the Assessing Authority;- (1) (2003) 133 STC 147 (A.P.) Kankadurga Manure Works Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. (2) (2004) 136 STC 173 Hoshyar Singh Vs. CST New Delhi (3) AIR 1979 SC 1960 (4) (1995)97STC442(AP)(DB) (5) (1975) 4 S(1)Supreme Court Cases ITO Vs. Nawab Mir Barkat (6) (1995) 96 STC 677 (DB) 7. It has also been stressed further that Chang of interest by way of reassessment orders for the year 1983-84 and 1984-85 was unjustified since the assessee had paid the due amount according to the returns submitted. The following case law has been cited in the support of this arguments:- 1. (1994) 94 STC 422 J.K. Synthetic Vs. CTO 2. (2002) 127 STC 258 SC CST Vs. Hindustan Aluminum Corporation. 8. AETC (Legal) appearing for the State argued that the requirement of From-D to be produced to avail the concessional rate of tax was included w.e.f. 15.1.1985 and this notification had prospective effect as held by the first Appellate Authority. The claim of the appellant that this should be applicable from 1978 was not tenable. He has also stressed that the reassessment was justified in case the lower rate of tax had been charged incorrectly and cited case titled "State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Devendran & Company, (1996) 95 STC" to support his argument. 9. Perusal of the reassessment order dated 16.1.1998 passed by the Assessing Authority makes it clear that the authority had held that M/s Himachal Wire Industries, Damtal was liable to pay central sales tax at the rate of 4% upto 14.1.1985 while this dealer had earlier been assessed on central sales tax at 1% and 2% and therefore the additional tax demand Was raised and interest on the tax due for the period upto 1/88 was also charged. I am not convinced by the argument of the departmental representative that CST was chargeable in this case at the rate of 4%. I am not convinced by the argument of the departmental representative that CST was chargeable in this case at the rate of 4%. Since concessional rate of 1% and 2% was leviable in the case of GST similar rate had to be charged in respect of CST also as has been held in various cases decided by this court keeping in view the circular of the Department dated 87.9.1997 wherein it has been clarified that in the case of lower rate being chareable under GST similar concession would be allowed under CST without a separate notification having been issued in the matter. In view of these conclusions the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Authority dated 16.1.1988 is set aside. 10. This order may be communicated to the parties. The file may be consigned to the record room after due completion.