JUDGMENT By the Court.—In this petition the challenge is to the order of sanction dated 4.8.2006 of the Additional Commissioner, Trade Tax, Varanasi under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act and the consequential notice dated 17.8.2006 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment), Trade Tax, Varanasi for reassessment. 2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 and is dealing in ammonia. 3. The petitioner was assessed to tax under U.P. Trade Tax Act for the assessment year 2000-2001 vide order 31.5.2002 at the rate of 10% of the sale turnover of Rs. 34,00310/-. The said assessment is sought to be reopened on the basis of the impugned sanction. 4. We have heard Sri Ravikant, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Umesh Chandra Kesarwani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. Sri Ravikant, Senior Advocate has submitted that the petitioner is engaged in the sale of anhydrous ammonia in liquid form which is a chemical and, therefore it was rightly assessed to tax at the rate of 10%. Merely for the reason that some audit objection was taken lateron the assessing authority cannot change its opinion to reopen the assessment proceedings and such an audit objection would not constitute material to give reason to believe that incorrect assessment was made on a lower rate of tax. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that under the notification dated 29.1.2001 entry 47 specifically provides for levy of 12% tax on oxygen and other gases but excluding fuel gas, natural gas and such other gases as are included in any other notification issued under the Act. Therefore, the above specific entry would prevail over the general entry and thus this notification forms the material for reopening of the assessment. 7. In view of the respective submission of the parties, two basic points arise for determination in this writ petition, namely, (i) whether ammonia is a chemical or gas; and (ii) whether the sanction for reassessment is on account of “change of opinion” or the assessing authority genuinely has a “reason to believe” that the petitioner was assessed to tax at a lower rate than prescribed. 8. The petitioner in the writ petition has categorically averred that it is dealing in anhydrous ammonia. 8. The petitioner in the writ petition has categorically averred that it is dealing in anhydrous ammonia. Its manufacturers are raising bills as per the excise tariff No. 281 which relates to chemicals. These averments have not been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit rather it has been clearly accepted that the petitioner deals in sale of anhydrous ammonia which is kept in liquid form for commercial purpose and is an inorganic chemical as well as gas. 9. The assessing authority for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 has again taxed the turnover of the petitioner treating ammonia as a chemical at the rate of 10% and not as gas. 10. In view of aforesaid, it is admitted to respondents that the petitioner is a dealer in anhydrous ammonia which is stored and kept in liquid form for the purposes of transportation, sale and purchase. 11. Now entry No. 22 of the schedule to the notification dated 15.1.2000 reads as under : “22 (i) Chemicals of all kinds 10% (ii) Natural gas 20%” 12. However, vide notification dated 29.1.2001 an additional entry No. 47 was added which reads as under: “47 Oxygen and other gases but excluding fuel gas, natural gas and such other gases as are included in any other notification issued under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. 12%” 13. At the time of passing of order of assessment dated 31.5.2002 both the aforesaid notifications were in existence. The assessing authority though has not referred to any of the aforesaid notifications while making the assessment but has levied tax at the rate of 10% of the turnover, obviously treating anhydrous ammonia under the head chemical. The assessing authority is supposed to be aware of all notifications and cannot plead ignorance of the subsequent notification. Therefore, the aforesaid decision is a conscious decision on part of the assessing authority and it cannot be presumed to have been passed in ignorance of the subsequent notification dated 29.1.2001. 14. The assessing authority is supposed to be aware of all notifications and cannot plead ignorance of the subsequent notification. Therefore, the aforesaid decision is a conscious decision on part of the assessing authority and it cannot be presumed to have been passed in ignorance of the subsequent notification dated 29.1.2001. 14. When both the notifications were treated to be within the knowledge of the assessing authority and despite specific entry No. 47 contained in the notification dated 29.1.2001, the assessing authority chooses to tax the turnover @ 10% which is applicable to chemicals, it means in the opinion of the assessing authority ammonia is a chemical and not gas which is subject to tax as chemical as per entry 22 of the notification dated 15.1.2000. 15. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘anhydrous’ as given in Chamber’s 20th Century Dictionary is as follows : “a term applied to a chemical substance free from water” 16. It means anhydrous ammonia in common popular sense is a chemical. 17. The consistent view of the Courts has been that a word or commodity must be understood as in common parlance and according to its common and dominant use, in the popular sense in which the people dealing with it understands. 18. A Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of Mysore Ammonia (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and another in sales tax appeal No. 2 of 1989 decided on 26.8.1992 has held that anhydrous ammonia would fall under entry No. 79 which pertains to chemicals of all kinds and would not fall under entry No. 121 which relates to industrial gas such as oxygen , acetylene, nitrogen and the like. 19. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the assessing authority on due application of mind treated the anhydrous ammonia in which the petitioner is dealing to be as a chemical and not gas for taxing purpose. 20. A perusal of Section 21(2) of the Act reveals that the proceedings for reassessment can only be initiated if there is reason to believe that there is escaped assessment. The word “reason to believe” came up for consideration before the Apex Court and various High Courts in several decisions. Apex Court held that the belief must be formed on the basis of the material, which has a nexus to the escaped turnover. 21. The word “reason to believe” came up for consideration before the Apex Court and various High Courts in several decisions. Apex Court held that the belief must be formed on the basis of the material, which has a nexus to the escaped turnover. 21. In Joti Prashad v. State of Haryana, JT 1992 (6) S.C. 94 the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the meaning of expression “reason to believe” in Section 26 of the Indian Penal Code held that the reason to believe is not the same as suspicion and a person must have reason to believe if the circumstances are such that a reasonable man would, by probable reasoning, conclude or infer regarding the nature of the thing concerned. 22. To put it more simply, it is settled legal proposition that “reason to believe” must be that of an honest and reasonable person which must also be supported by relevant material having nexus with formation of opinion to reopen the assessment and not of extraneous character. 23. The question whether the Assessing Officer had reasons to believe is a question of jurisdiction, a vital thing, which can always be investigated by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution as held in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, (1961) 41 I.T.R. 191 (SC) and Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, (1965) 57 I.T.R. 637 (SC). 24. It is equally settled principle of law that the notice under Section 21 of the Act cannot be issued on account of change of opinion on the basis of material available on record. 25. In the instant case the assessing authority applied its mind in taxing ammonia @ 10% of the turnover as observed previously though without referring to the two notifications. Therefore it is manifest that it treated ammonia as a chemical on due application of mind which cannot said to be unmindful of the notification dated 29.1.2001. Accordingly, we find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that sanction for reassessment is on account of “change of opinion” and not for the bona fide reason based upon any new material which may have escaped notice of the assessing authority at the time of initial assessment or on the ground of new material. 26. Accordingly, we find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that sanction for reassessment is on account of “change of opinion” and not for the bona fide reason based upon any new material which may have escaped notice of the assessing authority at the time of initial assessment or on the ground of new material. 26. Apart from the above, if there are two competing entries for taxing an article, the entry which is beneficial to the assessee ought to be preferred. Therefore also if the assessing authority had taken the beneficial entry into consideration while making the assessment it cannot turn around and adopt the other entry on a pretext that there is escaped assessment or taxation at the lower rate. 27. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that neither the notification dated 29.1.2001 is a fresh material nor it had escaped consideration at the time of assessment. The assessment was made on proper application of mind and therefore, notice of reassessment is nothing but an abuse of the process based on “change of opinion” which is not legally permissible. The impugned sanction granted under Section 21(2) of the Act is therefore apparently not for the reason that the assessing authority has reason to believe that the turnover of the petitioner was wrongly assessed at a lower rate. 28. Accordingly, the impugned order as well as the notice for reassessment cannot be sustained in law. We therefore direct for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the sanction order dated 4.8.2006 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) and the notice dated 17.8.2006 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition). 29. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ————