1963 (3) TMI 43 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Reassessment proceedings initiated by Sales Tax authorities based on service of notice on an Advocate; Interpretation of the term "agent" under the Rules made under the Act; Validity of service of notice on the Advocate as good service for reassessment proceedings.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging reassessment proceedings initiated by Sales Tax authorities based on a notice served on an Advocate. The petitioner argued that service on the Advocate did not constitute valid service on the petitioner, rendering the proceedings illegal and without jurisdiction. The crux of the issue revolved around the definition of "agent" as per rule 2(a) of the Rules made under the Act. The rule defines an agent as a person authorized by a dealer to appear on his behalf before the authorities. The Advocate, in this case, was considered an agent as per the power of attorney executed by the assessee, authorizing him to act and appear before the Assessing Authority.

The judgment highlighted Rule 66 of the Rules, which specifies methods of service of notice, including service on the agent being deemed good service vis-a-vis the principal. It was emphasized that the power of attorney in favor of the Advocate was not revoked before the notice for reassessment was served, further solidifying the validity of service on the Advocate. The court underscored that the specific authorization for receiving notice was not a prerequisite under the rules; once authorized to appear, the agent's role in receiving notice was immaterial. The petitioner's argument that the power of attorney did not explicitly mention receiving notice was deemed irrelevant in light of the rules' provisions.

The judgment dismissed the petitioner's reliance on previous cases unrelated to the specific rules at hand, emphasizing that the interpretation of rules 2 and 66 was crucial in the present matter. The court concluded that service on the agent, in this case, the Advocate, constituted valid service for the purposes of the Act, thereby upholding the reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent. The judgment underscored the importance of adherence to the defined rules and the authorized representation of dealers in legal proceedings before the authorities.