1971 (8) TMI 210 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice under section 21, U.P. Sales Tax Act served on the assessee.
2. Validity of notice requiring the assessee to attend on a specific date.
3. Due service of assessment order and notice of demand on the assessee.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of notice under section 21:
The case involved a reference under section 11(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act regarding the service of notices on the assessee. The notice under section 21 was initially served on Bhrigu Prakash Saxena, followed by subsequent notices served on different individuals. The Sales Tax Officer made an ex parte assessment when no one appeared on the fixed date. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred since it was filed after the expiry of thirty days from the date of service of the assessment order. The Judge (Revisions) affirmed this view, leading to a dismissal of the revision. However, the court did not address the first two questions raised as they did not directly arise from the order of the Judge (Revisions).

Issue 2: Validity of notice to attend on a specific date:
The second issue pertained to the validity of the notice requiring the assessee to attend on a specific date. The court did not directly address this issue as it was not considered to arise from the order of the Judge (Revisions) due to a preliminary objection raised by the Standing Counsel.

Issue 3: Due service of assessment order and notice of demand:
The crucial issue revolved around the due service of the assessment order and notice of demand on the assessee. The appellate authority and the Judge (Revisions) held that the service on Ram Swarup, who received the documents, was sufficient as he was deemed either a manager or agent of the assessee. This finding was based on circumstantial evidence, including previous instances where Ram Swarup accepted notices on behalf of the assessee. However, the court disagreed with this assessment, stating that agency requires mutual consent and evidence of the principal's conduct. As there was no direct evidence of P.D. Singhal authorizing Ram Swarup to act as his agent, the court concluded that the documents were not duly served on the assessee, thus ruling in favor of the assessee.

In conclusion, the court found that the assessment order and notice of demand were not properly served on the assessee, leading to a decision in favor of the assessee. The court awarded costs to the assessee and answered the reference accordingly.