JUDGMENT PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - The present revision is directed against the order dated April 15, 1998 passed by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Meerut in second appeal No. 218 of 1997, for the assessment year 1992-93 (Central) whereby and whereunder it set aside the proceedings initiated against the present - dealer opposite party for reassessment of the escaped turnover under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 on the ground that it is a case of change of opinion. The facts of the case in brief may be noted. The dealer - opposite party is a registered dealer and deals in the sale and purchase of bone products. For the assessment year 1992-93 (Central), the assessment order dated May 24, 1995 was passed under summary scheme. It was found that the turnover of the dealer - opposite party is not liable to tax and is exempted as the bone meal was sold as fertilizer. Subsequent thereto, proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was initiated by the assessing officer as he had received an information that the bone meal was sold to the dealers of ceramic/pottery manufacturers and the declaration given by the dealer - opposite party that it was sold as fertilizer is incorrect. A pre-reassessment show-cause notice was issued to the dealer - opposite party. The assessing officer found that bone meal was sold to ceramic manufacturers and it was not used as fertilizer. By the order dated February 28, 1997 a tax to the tune of Rs. 1,95,000 was levied. The said order was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) in first appeal preferred by the dealer. The order of the first appellate authority was challenged unsuccessfully by the Department before the Tribunal in the aforestated second appeal. In the memo of revision, the following question of law has been raised : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Trade Tax Tribunal was legally justified to hold that is was a matter of 'change of opinion' and not that 'non-application of mind' ?" Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned standing counsel submits that indisputably the earlier assessment order was passed under summary scheme without there being any application of mind by the authority concerned and as such the very initiation of proceedings under section 21 on the ground of the information received that the bone meal was not sold as fertilizer but to the dealer of the ceramic manufacturers is sufficient to reassess the turnover. It was submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that it is a case of change of opinion. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite - party supports the order of the Tribunal and submits that it is a case of change of opinion. Considered the respective submissions of the counsel of the parties and perused the record. When the matter was taken up earlier, this court directed the learned standing counsel to produce the original record. An argument was raised on behalf of the dealer - opposite party that in the original assessment order though framed under the summary scheme, a show-cause notice before passing of the assessment order was issued and its reply was submitted. The assessing authority after applying his mind to the reply framed the assessment order. The fact that speaking assessment order was framed was disputed by the learned standing counsel. To ascertain the correct factual position, the learned standing counsel was directed to produce the assessment record which was done before me on July 1, 2008. The assessment record was made available for inspection to the learned counsel for the assessee. A bare perusal of the assessment file would show that a show-cause notice before passing the assessment order was issued to which a detailed reply was filed. But the fact remains that without consideration of the reply submitted by the dealer - opposite party on its merit, a summary assessment order was framed. It follows that there was no application of mind by the authority concerned to the reply submitted by the dealer - opposite party. This factual position after looking into the original assessment file was not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the dealer - opposite party. The controversy thus narrows down to this that there was no application of mind by the assessing officer while passing the original assessment order. This factual position after looking into the original assessment file was not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the dealer - opposite party. The controversy thus narrows down to this that there was no application of mind by the assessing officer while passing the original assessment order. In other words, the claim of the dealer - opposite party that the bone meal was sold as fertilizer or to the ceramic manufacturers remained unscrutinised. In this view of the matter I am of the firm view that it is not a case of change of opinion but it is a case of non-application of mind while framing the original assessment order. The Tribunal somehow overlooked the fact that the original assessment order is a non-speaking order and it is bereft of any discussion on merits of the claim of the dealer - opposite party. It is also difficult to agree with the reasoning of the Tribunal that in the absence of any new fact, the proceeding for reassessment cannot be initiated on the basis of the material already on record. It is an acknowledged legal position that if the material on record was not considered or has escaped the notice of the assessing officer, it is a good ground to initiate the reassessment proceeding. The reliance placed by it on a Division Bench decision in Parikh and Sons, Kanpur v. Trade Tax Officer [1998] 109 STC 631 (All); [1997] UPTC 261 is misplaced one. A close reading of the judgment would show that the question that title in the goods was transferred by documents during the manufacture of goods from barabanki outside UP was considered in detail in the original assessment order. The said order was sought to be reopened on the ground that some survey which was already in existence before passing the assessment order was not considered. The notice for re-opening under section 21 of the Act was challenged before the High Court. The learned standing counsel, as noticed in the judgment could not place before the court, the material if any in the survey on the basis of which notice under section 21 was issued. On this basis, the High Court has held that nothing new was stated even in the impugned notice and as such the initiation of re-assessment proceeding is vitiated. On this basis, the High Court has held that nothing new was stated even in the impugned notice and as such the initiation of re-assessment proceeding is vitiated. The High Court was satisfied after perusing the original assessment order that the entire material was considered in the assessment order. In this factual background it was held that reassessment proceedings are not permissible. Here the factual position is quite distinct and different. As noticed above, and as also not disputed by the learned counsel for the dealer, there is total lack of discussion with regard to the taxability of bone-meal in the original assessment order. This being so, it cannot be said that it is a case of change of opinion. Viewed as above, it is held that the revision is on terra firma and the impugned order is indefensible. The revision succeeds and is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the question of law is answered in favour of the Department and against the dealer - opposite party. The matter is restored back to the Tribunal to hear and decide the appeal afresh as the question of quantum of turnover was not gone into therein. By way of clarification it is added that the plea that the reopening of the assessment is not valid will not be open for adjudication. The revision is allowed. No order as to costs.