1964 (8) TMI 50 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment orders and recovery proceedings under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60.
2. Allegation of ex parte assessments made without notice to the petitioner.
3. Lack of proper service of notices to the petitioner.
4. Failure to provide an opportunity to the assessee to show cause before making ex parte assessments.
5. Compliance with the modes of service as per rule 77 of the Sales Tax Act.
6. Justification of affixation of notices at the last known place of business.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns four writ petitions challenging assessment orders and recovery proceedings under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The petitioner, a sole proprietor of an iron and steel goods business, claimed ignorance of the assessments made ex parte without notice. The petitioner alleged that the first intimation of the proceedings was received during a demand for dues by a Kurk Amin. Despite the petitioner's request for copies of assessment orders, no clarification on service was provided. The assessment orders revealed ex parte assessments based on the closure of the business and the petitioner's employment elsewhere. The Sales Tax Officer's failure to properly notify the petitioner and provide an opportunity to be heard before making ex parte assessments raised concerns over procedural fairness.

The affidavit by the petitioner stated that the Sales Tax Officer did not ask him to appear in connection with the assessments, contradicting the vague and evasive response in the counter-affidavit. The lack of specificity and supporting evidence in the department's statements weakened their case. The judgment highlighted the necessity for precise and supported assertions in legal proceedings to ensure credibility and fairness. The petitioner's claim of improper service of notices was supported by the court's observation that the process-server's actions did not align with the prescribed modes of service under rule 77 of the Sales Tax Act.

The court scrutinized the process-server's report and the Sales Tax Officer's actions, emphasizing the importance of valid service of notices. The judgment deemed the service by affixation at the last known place of business as invalid and contrary to legal requirements. The court emphasized that service of notices is a crucial aspect of due process and should not be conducted lightly. The failure to properly serve notices to the petitioner before making ex parte assessments rendered the assessment orders and recovery proceedings invalid. Consequently, the court quashed the assessment orders and recovery proceedings for both assessment years, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements in tax assessments.