1. Petitioner Company had executed work contracts with the Government and some other statutory bodies for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96. The Assessing Authority vide its order dt. 14th of Dec’96, levied tax @ 4% from the gross turnover. 2. It seems that the Assessing Authority while exercising power under Section 7(8) of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act( here-in-after referred to as the Act), passed a fresh order of assessment on the ground that the assessee was assessed at a lower rate. It was contended in the order that the assessee had claimed concessional rate of tax on the basic receipt of payment from the department and had filed form under Section 16-A with the supporting documents to indicate that petitioner company was entitled to a lower rate of tax @ 4%. On re-assessment it was found that the assessee had undertaken the work and made supplies not only to the Government but also to the autonomous bodies like JDA, Tourism and other Corporations and received payments from these bodies. The order reveals that the re-assessment was done once it was found that the assessee was charged lesser rate of tax. While making re-assessment, recourse was taken to Section 7(11)(b) of the Act. An appeal was filed against the said order before the appellate authority which was dismissed. The petitioner company preferred an appeal against the order passed by the appellate authority before the State Sales Tax (Appellate) Tribunal, Jammu (here-in-after referred to as the Tribunal). The Tribunal after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal vide its order dt. 31st of Jan’06. 3. Petitioner Company thereafter filed an application before the Tribunal under Section 12-D of the Act, for referring the matter to this court after framing five questions of law, which read as under:- "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in law to hold that the word "Otherwise" can give jurisdiction to the Assessing Authority to reopen and reassess the dealer u/s 7(11) on any reason. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in law to hold that the oversight or mistake on the part of the Assessing Authority at the time of original assessment gives jurisdiction to the Assessing Authority to re-open the assessment order u/s 7(11) of the J&K GST Act, 1962). 3. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in law to hold that the oversight or mistake on the part of the Assessing Authority at the time of original assessment gives jurisdiction to the Assessing Authority to re-open the assessment order u/s 7(11) of the J&K GST Act, 1962). 3. Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in law in not accepting the contention of the appellant that it is only the fresh information/material which dehors the assessment that gives jurisdiction to the Assessing Authority to reopen the assessment u/s 7(11) of the J&K GST Act, 1962. 4. Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in law in ignoring the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of J&K in Bir Arjana Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (24 Tax Gazette (J&K) 1 (para 6 & 7) wherein the Hon’ble Court has specifically dealt with the phrase `Reasons to believe". 5. Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in law in upholding the levy of interest as per the provisions of Section 8(8) of the J&K GST Act, 1962 by merely referring to the amendment in sub section (2) of Section 8 of the J&K GST Act, 1962." 4. The Tribunal after hearing the parties found that no such questions of law arise in the case which require reference of the matter to this court. After having failed to obtain an order of reference from the Tribunal, present petition in terms of proviso to Section 12-D of the Act has been filed. 5. Contention of the petitioner is that the power to re-assess is conferred by Section 7(11)(a)(b) of the Act. It is stated that reassessment can be done only on disclosure or receipt of a new information by the authority concerned and as there has been no fresh material received by the assessing authority, it could not have re-assessed the petitioner on the same facts for which assessment had already been made. In other words, it is contended that the assessing authority had all the information available at the time of initial assessment and on its failure to assess the petitioner at that point of time will not give the power of re-assessment to the assessing authority. It is further contended that the same is also not a case of over-sight or mistake. 6. It is further contended that the same is also not a case of over-sight or mistake. 6. In order to appreciate the above argument put forth by the counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant provision 7(11)(a)(b) of the Act, which reads as under: - "7(11)(a) If the Assessing Authority has reasons to believe that by reasons of omission or failure on the part of a dealer to make a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) for any year, to the Assessing Authority or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, the turnover chargeable to tax has escaped assessment or has been assessed at lower rate for that year in whole or in part: or (b) if there has been no omission or failure as mentioned under clause (a) on the part of the dealer, the Assessing Authority has in consequence of information in his possession or otherwise reasons to believe that the turnover chargeable to tax has escaped assessment (or has been assessed at a lower rate) for any year in whole or in part. the Assessing Authority may subject to the provisions of sub sections (12) and (13) assess or re-assess the dealer to tax in whole or in part, as the case may be, on such turnover." 7. The import of aforenoticed provision clearly envisages two situations. The first situation arises where the assessing authority finds that due to the reason of omission or failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment for that, the turnover chargeable to tax and the same has not been charged, the re-assessment could be done. The second situation in terms of sub clause (b) noticed above is when the assessing authority has come into possession of a fresh information which was not available with it at the time of assessment regarding the actual turnover of the assessee. The other ground for re-assessment under the said provision is that the assessing authority has reasons to believe that the turnover chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment or has been assessed at a lower rate for any year in whole or in part. 8. The other ground for re-assessment under the said provision is that the assessing authority has reasons to believe that the turnover chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment or has been assessed at a lower rate for any year in whole or in part. 8. The other contention has two aspects, (a) if due to oversight that any turnover which has not been charged to tax but was required to be taxed, the re-assessment can be ordered or (b) if any lower rate of tax has been charged, the power of reassessment can be exercised by the authority concerned. 9. Applying the above principles to the present case, it clearly envisages that in case the assessing authority has reasons to believe that lower rate of tax has been charged, there is no requirement of any fresh material or information to be obtained by the assessing authority for re-assessment. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner company is being assessed afresh on the basis of the same material which was provided at the time of initial assessment and no new information has been procured or obtained by the assessing authority for re-assessment cannot be sustained as it is a case of charging of tax at a lower rate which has nothing to do with the first part of the provision noticed above that the re-assessment can be ordered only if there is a fresh information disclosed to the assessing authority. The words "otherwise reasons to believe’: as used in sub clause (b) noticed above, will relate to a fact when the assessing authority on re-examination has reasons to believe that a lower rate of tax has been charged or that any component of the turnover which has not been subjected to tax is required to be taxed. This power need not be exercised only on the basis of a fresh information but on re-examination of the assessment order, where it clearly reflects according to the assessing authority, that lower rate of tax has been charged I accordingly do not find any substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. What has been done in the present case is that on re-examination of the assessment order, it has been found that a lower rate of tax was charged from the petitioner. 10. What has been done in the present case is that on re-examination of the assessment order, it has been found that a lower rate of tax was charged from the petitioner. The reassessment, as such, was not on account of any fresh information having been received or any fact which has escaped the attention of the assessing authority in determining the liability of tax As already mentioned, it was on re-examination of the assessment order, it was found that tax at a lower rate has been charged. The expression `information’ or `otherwise’ are two distinct things The word `information’ would relate to discovery of a new fact or material while as word `otherwise’ would mean that on the same set of facts, it is discovered that an error has been committee while charging the tax on the assessee. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, has relied upon various judgments. Bir Arjana Enterprises Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer, reported in (1994)116 CTR (J&K) 628, is one such judgment. A perusal of the said judgment reveals that there was no omission or failure on the part of assessee to make a return as contemplated nor there was any new information in possession of the assessing authority obtained by it subsequent to the assessment order. Whatever information was necessary, was already available with the assessing authority. It was in these circumstances, it was held in the aforementioned case that no assessment could be ordered. In the present case, it be seen that neither was any information in possession of the assessing authority nor there was any failure on the part of the assessee to make a return but it is a case where on re-examination of the assessment order, it was found that tax at a lower rate has been charged. 12. Another judgment relied upon by the petitioner is reported as Krishna Enterprises v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, New Delhi and others, (2005) 140 STC 148 . What was observed in para 6 of the aforementioned judgment is being reproduced below:- "While passing the original orders of assessment the order dated February 28, 1994, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was before the assessing officer. That order stands till today. What was observed in para 6 of the aforementioned judgment is being reproduced below:- "While passing the original orders of assessment the order dated February 28, 1994, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was before the assessing officer. That order stands till today. What the assessing officer has said about the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) while recording reasons under section 147 he could have said even in the original orders of assessment. Thus, it is a case of mere change of opinion which does not provide jurisdiction to the assessing officer to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act." 13. After noticing the above facts, in para 11 of the judgment in the aforesaid case, it was observed that the re-assessment orders having been passed on the basis of mere change of opinion cannot be sustained. 14. The aforementioned judgment would not be applicable to the case in hand as in this case, as indicated above, it is not the case where earlier items which were assessed were found to be non-taxable but is a case where on re-examination, it was found that tax at a lower rate has been charged. On this disclosure, it would be revealed that the assessing authority had the power to make the assessment order. 15. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tarajan Tea Co.(P) Ltd. (1999) 152 CTR(SC) 1 is another judgment on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner. In the above case also the reassessment order passed by the assessing authority was found to be invalid as there was no omission or failure on the part of assessee to make a return nor the AO was found to be possession of any information subsequent to the assessment order Under such circumstances, the reopening of the case and passing a fresh reassessment order was found to be unsustainable, which is not the case herein as in this case, a lower rate of tax has been charged and it is on this ground the information having been received by the assessing authority, a fresh assessment order has been passed. Therefore, keeping in view the above said facts, the petitioner cannot derive any support from the judgments which are sought to be relied upon by him. 16. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any force in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.