JUDGMENT Hon’ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. The petitioner, above named, has filed this writ petition to challenge the reassessment under the Uttarakhand of the Value Added Tax (hereinafter referred to as ‘VAT’) for the assessment years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. The challenge includes both the notices issued under Section 29 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘VAT Act’) and the orders passed thereunder. 2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner has been carrying on business of direct selling of various items of goods and these goods are sold at the same price at different States. The petitioner maintains books of accounts properly and duly reflecting the true and correct position of the business activity. It was registered under Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act and under the VAT Act after the same having come into force and also under the Central Sales Tax Act. The regular assessments in respect of assessment year 2005-2006 under Section 25 of VAT Act has been completed by respondent No. 3 herein the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment) Commercial Taxes, Dehradun after detailed scrutiny of the account books, documents, sale invoice, daily sale register, vouchers, stock book etc. and assessment order was passed. While doing so the said official had duly seen, verified and signed the documents and register. Similarly, the assessments for the assessment years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 have also been completed by the Assessing Authority, after verifying and accepting the book of accounts. All the invoices along with records, such as ledger, cash book, bank book, daily sales book, daily sales return book, daily tax book, daily tax return book, stock book and purchase invoices etc. were verified, signed and accepted. Thus, the assessments for the three assessment years i.e. 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 have been completed by Assessing Authority and the book figures were accepted in all the assessments. The Assessing Authority never raised any objection to the pattern of invoices including sales one or books and accepted the same. On the basis of invoices, after the books of accounts, the Assessing Authority accepted the sale figures both declared by in the periodical returns and books of accounts and tax liability admitted and declared on the basis of sale is also accepted in assessment orders. 3. On the basis of invoices, after the books of accounts, the Assessing Authority accepted the sale figures both declared by in the periodical returns and books of accounts and tax liability admitted and declared on the basis of sale is also accepted in assessment orders. 3. The assessment for the assessment year 2005-2006 was completed by passing order dated 31st July, 2009. Similarly, assessment orders for the assessment years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 were completed by the Assessing Authority by passing orders dated 26th February, 2010 and 8th December, 2010 respectively. In course of assessment proceedings, the account books, namely, cash book, ledger, daily sale book, daily sales return book, daily tax book, daily tax return book, stock book, purchase and sale invoices were produced and the Assessing Authority had also verified and examined in detail, the same and even signed before accepting the said books of accounts and before making an assessment. 4. After expiry of the period of six years for the assessment year 2005-2006 reassessment under Section 29 (1) of the VAT Act was sought to be initiated issuing a notice. Similar notices were also issued for the assessment years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. All the notices were issued, for all the said assessment years, on 14th August, 2012. Before issuance of the said notices, a survey was made on 15th March, 2011 at the premises of the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (SIB), Dehradun. On the basis of the survey, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 16th June, 2011 creating certain liabilities against the petitioner for the assessment years 2005-2006 to 2010-2011 directing the petitioner to deposit certain amount mentioned in the said order dated 16th June, 2011. The said action of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (SIB), Dehradun was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2233 (M/S) of 2011 on 17th October, 2011. On 18th October, 2011, the said petition was admitted for hearing and interim order was passed. The said writ petition was finally allowed on 7th June, 2012 by this Hon’ble Court and thereby said order of the Deputy Commissioner was set aside. 5. On 18th October, 2011, the said petition was admitted for hearing and interim order was passed. The said writ petition was finally allowed on 7th June, 2012 by this Hon’ble Court and thereby said order of the Deputy Commissioner was set aside. 5. The petitioner on receipt of the notices duly replied to the same, taking the point of limitation so far as the assessment of the year 2005-2006 is concerned, and another point that all the assessment orders cannot be reopened by reassessment for the reason mentioned in the said notices. After receipt of the reply the impugned order was passed. 6. Mr. Bharatji Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of the petitioner contends that as far as notices and orders of reassessment for the assessment year 2005-2006 is concerned, the same is time barred under the VAT Act. He elaborates that reassessment can be made under Section 29(2) of the VAT Act within a period of three years and after expiry of the same, the same cannot be done. However, by virtue of Section 29(4) of the VAT Act, the same can be done under certain circumstances even beyond the period of three years but not beyond six years from the end of such assessment year. The reassessment of the assessment year 2005-2006 is barred because the original assessment was passed on 31st July, 2009 and six years expired on 31st March, 2012. The notice of reassessment was issued under Section 29(4) of the VAT Act on 14th August, 2012. Therefore, it is patently barred by statutorily time limit. The proceeding of the earlier writ petition has nothing to do with the reassessment. Issue involved in the earlier writ petition was whether the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (SIB) was competent authority to pass any order of assessment or not. The issue was not whether the demand can be made on the merit. Therefore, pendency of this proceedings does not help under the law in any manner to answer the point of limitation so far as reassessment of the assessment year 2005-2006 is concerned. 7. In addition to the above point, Mr. Aggarwal has contended that all the reassessment proceedings for the assessment years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 are without jurisdiction, as the same are based on change of opinion. 7. In addition to the above point, Mr. Aggarwal has contended that all the reassessment proceedings for the assessment years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 are without jurisdiction, as the same are based on change of opinion. He contends that Section 29(1) of the VAT Act specifically provides that if the Assessing Authority has reason to believe that turnover has escaped then he can make reassessment. Regular Assessment for all these assessment years were completed after detailed scrutiny of the books of accounts, sale invoices, daily sale register, stock register, daily tax book, purchase invoices and book figures having been accepted in all the assessment years, and sale figures declared by the petitioner having been accepted, and finally assessment orders have been passed. No reassessment can be made on account of change of opinion on the basis of the same sale invoice, sale register which were examined in the original assessment proceedings. Survey dated 15th March, 2011 was made in which the same sale invoices were seen, on the basis of which reassessment proceedings are sought to be initiated on the ground that in the sale invoices value of the goods and tax are not separately shown. The reasons given clearly show that re-appreciating of the same materials and facts, which were existing at the time of the original assessment. He then contends that change of opinion is not permissible for reassessment by Assessing Authority as it is the settled position of law under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act and this legal principle squarely applies in case of proceedings initiated under Section 29 of the VAT Act, as the language mentioned therein are identical with those of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. 8. The above settled principle has been laid down by the various courts of this Country. In support of this legal principle, he has referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs ITO reported in (Supreme Court) (Vol. XLI) ITR 1961 page 191, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Kelvinator India reported in (2010) ITR page 561 (Supreme Court) and a decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High court in Aryaverth Chawal Udyog Vs State of U.P. reported in 2008 UPTC page 881. Ltd. Vs ITO reported in (Supreme Court) (Vol. XLI) ITR 1961 page 191, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Kelvinator India reported in (2010) ITR page 561 (Supreme Court) and a decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High court in Aryaverth Chawal Udyog Vs State of U.P. reported in 2008 UPTC page 881. He further relied on the decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Eicher reported in (2007) 294 ITR page 310 and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in (2002) 256 ITR page 1. He, therefore, concludes that notices for reassessment for the assessment years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 and the order are liable to be set aside and quashed. 9. Mr. A.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand opposes this writ petition contending that the State Government in exercise of power conferred under Section 32 (12) of the VAT Act increased the time upto 30th September, 2009 by notification dated 3rd March, 2009 and thus time for reassessment was extended upto 30th September, 2012 for assessment year 2005-2006. The assessment was done on 31st July, 2009 and, therefore, in view of conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 32(12) and Section 29(4) of the VAT Act, the period of limitation of six years would come to end on 9th September, 2012, not on 31st March, 2012 and thus the proceedings with regard to the said assessment year is within time and cannot be said to be barred by the limitation of time. That apart the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the survey report dated 16th June, 2011 and also orders passed by Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (SIB) and this writ petition was pending for adjudication in this High Court from 18th October, 2011 till 7th June, 2012. The said writ petition pertains to the same question of law, as such, time during which the said writ petition was pending has to be excluded for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation. Thus, the reassessment made for the assessment year 2005-2006 is not barred by limitation. The said writ petition pertains to the same question of law, as such, time during which the said writ petition was pending has to be excluded for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation. Thus, the reassessment made for the assessment year 2005-2006 is not barred by limitation. He further contends that the petitioner itself submitted a representation on 2nd November, 2011 pleading therein that in view of pendency of the writ petition, reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2005-2006 under Section 29(4) of the VAT Act should be adjourned sine die till the final disposal of the matter by this Hon’ble High Court. Consequently, it is not open for the petitioner to take about-turn to contend that matter is barred by time, as the petitioner is legally estopped from raising this misconceived plea of limitation. He further contends that it is not a case of change of opinion. The petitioner has evaded the tax by not mentioning the amount of tax separately in the sale invoice as required under the provision of the VAT Act and, when the same was transpired, the proceedings against the petitioner were initiated in accordance with law. The provision contained under Sections 60(1), 60(2)(d) read with Section 2(41) of the VAT Act cast legal duty on the petitioner to submit the sale invoice mentioning therein the goods sold with the price, quantity and tax charged and other particulars, as may be prescribed. Consequently, the petitioner, who had not disclosed the amount of tax charged separately, cannot be permitted to contend that the case in hand is a case of change of opinion nor the petitioner should contend that the proceedings are without jurisdiction. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on records, the following points have fallen for consideration by this Court in this case:- 1. Whether the reassessment of the assessment in respect of the assessment year 2005-2006 is time barred or not? 2. Whether all the reassessment for the assessment years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 are legally permissible, in other words whether the same are based on change of opinion or not? 11. Before I deal with the respective contention and examine the above aspects, I setout the power of the Assessing Officer to reassess, which is provided under Section 29 of the VAT Act, are as follows:- “29. 11. Before I deal with the respective contention and examine the above aspects, I setout the power of the Assessing Officer to reassess, which is provided under Section 29 of the VAT Act, are as follows:- “29. Assessment of Escaped Turnover:- (1) Where after a dealer is assessed under Section 25 or Section 26 for any year or part thereof, the Assessing Authority has reason to believe that the whole or any part of turnover of the dealer in respect of any tax period has:- (a) escaped assessment; or (b) been under assessed; or (c) been assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which it is assessable; or (d) been wrongly allowed any exemption or deduction therefrom; or 9 (e) been wrongly allowed any tax credit therein, the Assessing Authority shall, after recording the reasons in writing, serve a notice on the dealer and after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard and making such enquiries as he considers necessary, he shall assess or reassess the turnover of the dealer and tax according to law and the provisions of this Act shall as far as may be, apply accordingly: Provided that the tax shall be charged at the rate at which it would have been charged had the turnover not escaped assessment or full assessment as the case may be. Explanation (1) Nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to prevent the Assessing Authority from making any assessment to the best of its judgment. Explanation (2) For the purposes of this section and of Section 30 “Assessing Authority” means the officer who passed the earlier assessment order, if any, and includes the officer having jurisdiction for the time being to assess the dealer. Explanation (3) Notwithstanding the issuance of notice under this sub-section, where as order of assessment or reassessment is in existence from before the issuance of such notice it shall continue to be effective as such, until varied by an order of assessment or reassessment made under this section in pursuance of such notice.” 12. It appears from the records that the case on hand pertains to escapement of assessments and not on any other ground. It appears from the records that the case on hand pertains to escapement of assessments and not on any other ground. I have seen the notices dated 14th August, 2012, language of which is identical, grounds and reasons have been mentioned and the same are reproduced hereunder:- “On 15th March, 2011 a Special Investigation Officer, Dehradun has inspected one of your trading places, in which while verifying the sale invoices, it was found that trader was not showing the value of the goods and tax being charged separately in the invoice. In this condition, it is neither clear to the department nor to the customer whether they have been charged tax or not, or the tax being collected from them is deposited to the Revenue of the Government. Thus, sale invoice only depicts of value of goods, viz. with reference to any sale, whatever amount is shown in the invoice as sale, will entirely be treated as sale value. Having thoroughly studying the report, it was found that trader has not followed the provision mentioned under Section 22(4) and 22(5) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act.” 13. Thus, from the language of the notices, it does not appear that notices directly relate to escapement of assessment rather it mentioned failure of the petitioner in not observing the provision mentioned under Sections 22(4) and 22(5) of the VAT Act. It is mere failure to comply with the statutory requirements, as mentioned in the said sections. From the language of Section 29(1) of the VAT Act, it appears to me that failure in complying with above statutory requirements cannot remotely be said to be escapement of assessment. Therefore, going by the language, I think, this reassessment ought not to have been made as the notices do not mention in clear terms that it is a case of escapement of assessment and as such reassessment was necessary. But when both parties have proceeded on the basis that it is a case of reassessment and escapement of assessment, this Court is not deciding on this aspect and proceed on the basis that reassessment is otherwise can be initiated. 14. I will deal with the question of the limitation relating to the assessment year 2005-2006. 15. But when both parties have proceeded on the basis that it is a case of reassessment and escapement of assessment, this Court is not deciding on this aspect and proceed on the basis that reassessment is otherwise can be initiated. 14. I will deal with the question of the limitation relating to the assessment year 2005-2006. 15. Indisputably under Section 29(2) and (3) of the VAT Act in ordinary circumstances, reassessment cannot be made after expiry of three years from the end of the year in respect of which or part of which tax is assessable or within three years and nine months ending on 31st December, after expiry of the assessment year for which assessment is to be made, but in special case under Section 29(4) of the VAT Act such reassessment can be made, after expiry of the period mentioned in Sub Sections (2) and (3) of Section 29 of the VAT Act, but not later than six years from the end of such assessment year, notwithstanding, such assessment and reassessment involving the change of opinion. 16. In this case, the reassessment notice was issued beyond expiry of three years, and going by the arithmetic computation, it is beyond six years even as six years expired on 31st March, 2012 and the instant notice, pertaining to the assessment year 2005-2006, was issued on 14th August, 2012. But in this case as rightly argued by learned counsel for the State that issues and point of law involved in the reassessment for the year amongst other, 2005-2006 were pending for adjudication before this Court from 18th October, 2011 to 7th June, 2012. Thus I overrule the contention of Mr. Agarwal, for the petitioner that the earlier writ petition has nothing to do with the question involved in this reassessment proceedings and it was the question of jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner (SIB) to pass any order of assessment. 17. I am of the view that it is true, apparently the issue related to jurisdiction, but the jurisdiction was questioned in connection with alleged evasion of taxes because of escapement of assessment. This Court granted interim order staying operation of the earlier action taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (SIB) and as such the Department could not take any action from 18th October, 2011 to 7th June, 2012. This Court granted interim order staying operation of the earlier action taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (SIB) and as such the Department could not take any action from 18th October, 2011 to 7th June, 2012. In my view, though this period is overlapped by the period of six years, it must be excluded from the period of six years as during this time nothing could be done. Hence, while accepting the argument of the learned counsel for the State, the period of limitation of the reassessment for the year 2005-2006 ended March, after August 2012. Hence, I hold that the assessment in reassessment in relation to the assessment year 2005-2006 is not time barred. 18. Now, I shall deal with the question, under the facts and circumstances of the case, whether reassessment was permissible under the law or not. 19. The law in this respect is very well settled and I feel it needs reiteration. Mr. Aggarwal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner cited a few authorities on this issue. 20. In the case of Aryaverth Chawal Udyog Vs State of U.P. reported in 2008 UPTC Page 881 the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) while dealing with Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, which is similar to the present Section 29 of the VAT Act observed in paragraph 74 of the said judgment amongst other as follows:- “It may be mentioned here that in view of the language used in the proviso to Section 21(2) of the Act, the approval of extension of time may be granted even in case of change of opinion, but in absence of any such words in Section 21(1) of the Act the Assessing Authority cannot initiate and reopen the proceeding under Section 21(1) of the Act on account of change of opinion.” 21. In paragraph 76 of the said report, it has been held as under:- “The initiation of proceedings under Section 21(1) of the Act on account of change of opinion are not permissible and, therefore, the initiation of proceedings under Section 21 of the Act in the cases of the petitioners are bad in law.” 22. In paragraph 76 of the said report, it has been held as under:- “The initiation of proceedings under Section 21(1) of the Act on account of change of opinion are not permissible and, therefore, the initiation of proceedings under Section 21 of the Act in the cases of the petitioners are bad in law.” 22. It appears that the said Bench of Allahabad High Court while following large number of Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions rendered dealing with Section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and also Section 147 of the present Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein the identical language has been mentioned has held as above. I have also taken note of the Supreme Court decision noted therein and found that the Apex Court consistently turn the view that change of opinion is not permissible on the same materials. 23. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act held in paragraph No. 6, as follows:- “However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words “reason to believe” failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of “mere change of opinion”, which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess. But reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain preconditions and if the concept of “change of opinion” is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place. One must treat the concept of “change of opinion” as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is “tangible material” to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief.” 24. In the old Constitutional Bench decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs ITO reported in ITR (Vol. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief.” 24. In the old Constitutional Bench decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs ITO reported in ITR (Vol. XLI) 1961 page 191 at the bottom of page 200 of the said report it was observed as follows:- “The Explanation to the section gives a quietus to all such contentions; and the position remains that so far as primary facts are concerned, it is the assessee’s duty to disclose all of them – including particular entries in account books, particular portions of documents, and documents and other evidence which could have been discovered by the assessing authority, from the documents and other evidence disclosed. Does the duty, however, extend beyond the full and truthful disclosure of all primary facts? In our opinion, the answer to this question must be in the negative. Once all the primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure. It is for him to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. It is not for somebody else-far less the assessee-to tell the assessing authority what inferences, whether of facts or law, should be drawn. Indeed, when it is remembered that people often differ as regards what inferences should be drawn from given facts, it will be meaningless to demand that the assessee must disclose what inferences – whether of facts or law – he would draw from the primary facts.” 25. The Delhi High Court Division Bench decision in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Eicher Ltd. reported in (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) has concluded when escape of assessment can be presumed in order to reassess the assessment. The Delhi High Court Division Bench decision in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Eicher Ltd. reported in (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Delhi) has concluded when escape of assessment can be presumed in order to reassess the assessment. In paragraph 16 of the said report the Delhi High Court observed as follows:- “Applying the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this court as well as the observations of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, we find that if the entire material had been placed before the assessee before the Assessing Officer at the time when the original assessment was made and the Assessing Officer applied his mind to that material and accepted the view canvassed by the assessee, then merely because he did not express this in the assessment order, that by itself would not give him a ground to conclude that income has escaped assessment and, therefore, the assessment needed to be reopened. On the other hand, if the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind and committed a lapse, there is no reason why the assessee should be made to suffer the consequences of that lapse.” 26. The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in ITR, (2002) 256 Page1 reliance on which has been placed by the above Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, has also explained when reason to believe can be inferred. At page 13 of the said report in placitum, “D” the Full Bench observed amongst other as follows:- “Reverting back to the case at hand, it is clear from the reasons placed by the Assessing Officer on record as also from the statement made in the counter affidavit and all that the Income-tax Officer has said is that he was not right in allowing deduction under section 80-I because he had allowed the deductions wrongly and, therefore, he was of the opinion that the income had escaped assessment. Though he has used the phrase ‘reason to believe’ in his order, admittedly, between the date of the orders of assessment sought to be reopened and the date of forming of opinion by the Income-tax Officer nothing new has happened. There is no change of law. No new material has come on record. No information has been received. Though he has used the phrase ‘reason to believe’ in his order, admittedly, between the date of the orders of assessment sought to be reopened and the date of forming of opinion by the Income-tax Officer nothing new has happened. There is no change of law. No new material has come on record. No information has been received. It is merely a fresh application of mind by the same Assessing Officer to the same set of facts.” 27. On careful study of all these decisions, quoted above, it appears to me the reassessment cannot be made if it is found as follows:- The notice for reopening has been issued based on the same materials and any opinion is formed taking a fresh decision which is different to the earlier decision based on the same materials. In other words, in the name of reassessment, the power of review or the exercise of appellate jurisdiction is sought to be done by the same Officer. 28. In the back ground of the aforesaid legal position, now it is incumbent for this Court to examine the case on hand. From the records, I find when the original assessment order was passed, the Assessing Officer, observed in relation to the assessment year 2005-2006 as follows:- “The accounts and documents presented were verified. Sale Invoice No. 16937 dated 30.03.2006 for Rs. 3401.00, Purchase Bill Stock Transfer Challan No. 1131 dated 20.12.2005 for Rs. 12,734.00 were signed by me. Forms and now-declared sales are not varying. No records are available on confidential letter regarding any survey for the corresponding. On the basis of accounts, declared sales are accepted and as per State & Central Act, tax-liability on these sales are assessed as under.” 29. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner assessee placed all the cards before the Assessing Officer and nothing was concealed. The Assessing Officer had applied his mind and examined all the documents. 30. Similarly, the Assessing Officer, while passing order for assessment in relation to assessment year 2006-2007 observed, as follows:- “The accounts and documents presented were verified. Sale Invoice No. 2209 dated 29.04.2006 for Rs. 4599.00, Purchase Bill Stock Transfer Challan No. 1125021 dated 08.04.2006 for Rs. 320750.76, Sales Register, Page No. 15, Rs. 104722244.53, Stock Transfer Outside State Challan No. 264, dated 15.02.2007 for Rs. 17262.92 were signed by me. Forms and now declared sales are not varying. Sale Invoice No. 2209 dated 29.04.2006 for Rs. 4599.00, Purchase Bill Stock Transfer Challan No. 1125021 dated 08.04.2006 for Rs. 320750.76, Sales Register, Page No. 15, Rs. 104722244.53, Stock Transfer Outside State Challan No. 264, dated 15.02.2007 for Rs. 17262.92 were signed by me. Forms and now declared sales are not varying. No records are available on confidential letter regarding any survey for the corresponding. On the basis of accounts, declared sales are accepted and as per State & Central Act, tax-liability on these sales are assessed as under.” 31. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid observation that the Assessing Officer has scrutinized and examined all materials placed before him by the assessee. 32. The Assessing Officer recorded, while passing order for the assessment in relation to assessment year 2007-2008, as follows:- “Presented accounts and documents were investigated. In the account books, sales bill No. 210700045922 dated 13.03.2008 Rs. 3977.00, Purchase Bill Stock Transfer Challan No. 9965 dated 29.05.2007 Rs. 19999.51, Sales Account Page No. 95 – Rs. 4025 were signed by me. Statements and now declared sales does not differ in any way. Investigation in connection with the year under review are not available in confidential cell and neither any information is available on computation of tax assessment document. On the basis of all the facts obtained from the documents, approving the declared sales, under the Act of Regional and Central, following taxability on trader is arrived at.” 33. No one can doubt that the Assessing Officer spared anything else. Everything was examined and scrutinized by the Assessing Officer whatever was placed by the assessee petitioner. In the background, as above, the notices were issued on the following identical reasons, which is quoted hereunder:- “On 15th March, 2011 a Special Investigation Officer, Dehradun has inspected one of your trading places, in which while verifying the sale invoices, it was found that trader was not showing the value of the goods and tax being charged separately in the invoice. In this condition, it is neither clear to the department nor to the customer whether they have been charged tax or not, or the tax being collected from them is deposited to the Revenue of the Government. Thus, sale invoice only depicts of value of goods, viz. with reference to any sale, whatever amount is shown in the invoice as sale, will entirely be treated as sale value. Thus, sale invoice only depicts of value of goods, viz. with reference to any sale, whatever amount is shown in the invoice as sale, will entirely be treated as sale value. Having thoroughly studying the report, it was found that trader has not followed the provision mentioned under Section 22(4) and 22(5) of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act.” 34. Therefore, while issuing the subsequent notice, Additional Commissioner being the Reassessing Officer did not accept the sale invoices as legally valid ones, but those documents were accepted earlier by the Assessing Officer. It is true, why it was earlier accepted by the Assessing Officer is not spelt out and this time the Assessing Officer is of the view that the documents which have been accepted earlier should not be accepted. Therefore, it is a clear case of change of decision and mind or opinion. Moreover, it would appear the same materials were examined and no new material was taken into consideration. It is true that provision of Sub-section 4 of Section 29 of the VAT Act permit to issue notice after expiry of six years even in case of two opinion is involved. I am of the view this enable to issue notice and does not permit to pass order of reassessment on change of opinion as no such expression could be found in Section 29(1) of the VAT Act which is the governing provision. Similar view was taken by Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Case of Aryaverth (Supra) wherein Section 21(2) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act having same language with the present one came into question. 35. Under those circumstances, only conclusion can be arrived at by this Court that by the impugned notices review exercise is sought to be done in the name of reassessment. As a matter of fact, in the notice, there is no whisper of escapement of assessment only ground taken is non compliance of some statutory provisions. It would appear, if there is non compliance then there is a remedy in the Act under Section 58 of the VAT Act which provides as follows:- “58. As a matter of fact, in the notice, there is no whisper of escapement of assessment only ground taken is non compliance of some statutory provisions. It would appear, if there is non compliance then there is a remedy in the Act under Section 58 of the VAT Act which provides as follows:- “58. Offences and Penalties (1) If the assessing authority is satisfied that any dealer or other person has committed the offence in any clause of column (1) of the following chart it may, after such enquiry as deemed necessary, such dealer or person shall pay, by way of penalty, in addition to the tax, if any, payable by mentioned in the related column (2).” In Column xxv, it is provided as follows:- “(xxv) fails to issue a Sale Invoice in accordance with the provisions of section 60, or has issued a Sale Invoice with incomplete or incorrect particulars or having issued such invoice he has failed to account for it correctly in his books of accounts:” The final measure as follows:- “(xxv) a sum of rupees one hundred or the amount of tax involved, whichever higher for the first default or two hundred rupees or four times of the tax involved whichever is higher for the second and subsequent default.” 36. Thus, when the statute provides, this measure to be taken in one way and this must be done in that way or not at all. This is settled principle of law has been laid down long back in Taylor Vs Taylor reported in (1875) 1 Ch D 426 and Nazir Ahmad Vs King Emperor reported in AIR 1936 PC 253. 37. Thus, I think that in the garb of reassessment, this measure cannot be taken. Therefore, I set aside the notices and also the orders passed therein. 38. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.