1964 (8) TMI 56 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Communication of assessment order to the assessee.
2. Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to revise an assessment order.
3. Methods of service prescribed for communication of assessment orders.

Analysis:

1. Communication of Assessment Order:
The High Court considered whether the assessment order had been effectively communicated to the assessee. The court noted that a mere note stating "despatched" on the file was insufficient to prove proper communication. The court highlighted that under the General Sales Tax Rules, various methods of service were prescribed, such as delivering to the dealer, sending by registered post, or affixing at the last known place of business. It was emphasized that the word "despatched" alone did not indicate which specific method of service was utilized. Additionally, the court observed that the assessee had not received the "C" form notice for refund, indicating a lack of communication. Consequently, the court concluded that the assessment order had not been communicated to the assessee as per the prescribed methods.

2. Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner:
Referring to a previous judgment, the court discussed the Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction to revise an assessment order that had not been communicated to the assessee. The court highlighted that as per the Madras General Sales Tax Act, the Deputy Commissioner could not revise an order if the time for appeal had not expired and the order had not been communicated. It was reiterated that proper communication was essential for the revision of an assessment order. In this case, since the assessment order had not been effectively communicated, the Deputy Commissioner's revision was deemed to be without jurisdiction.

3. Methods of Service Prescribed:
The court elaborated on the prescribed methods of service for communicating assessment orders to dealers. It was emphasized that the rules provided for specific modes of service, including personal delivery, registered post, or affixing at the last known place of business. The court emphasized that a mere mention of "despatched" was insufficient to establish the method of service employed. The court stressed the importance of adhering to the prescribed methods to ensure proper communication of assessment orders. In this case, the court found that the methods of service had not been followed as required by law, leading to the conclusion that the assessment order had not been effectively communicated to the assessee.

Therefore, based on the lack of proper communication of the assessment order and the Deputy Commissioner's jurisdictional limitations, the High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the assessment on the disputed turnover. No costs were awarded in the matter.