1965 (11) TMI 139 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Service of notice under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.
2. Validity of service through telegram under rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules.
3. Bar of limitation for assessment proceedings under section 21.
4. Relief sought for the return of seized documents and papers.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a dealer in iron and steel, was assessed for the year 1960-61 under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 21, alleging non-receipt of the notice by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that he was not served with any notice under section 21, which was crucial for commencing the proceedings. The court examined the modes of service under Rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, emphasizing that service must align with the prescribed methods to be valid. It was observed that the notice was left at the business premises but not served personally to the dealer or his representative, as required by the rules. The court concluded that the petitioner was not properly served with the notice, rendering the proceedings without jurisdiction.

2. Another aspect considered was the validity of serving a notice through telegram under rule 77. The Sales Tax Officer had sent a telegram to the petitioner, directing him to appear for the case. The court analyzed the language and intent of rule 77, highlighting that service by telegram was not a recognized method under the rule. The court emphasized that the rule specified the modes of service, and serving a notice by telegram did not align with the prescribed procedures. The court concluded that the telegram sent was not a valid mode of service under rule 77, further supporting the petitioner's argument of non-receipt of the notice.

3. The court addressed the issue of the bar of limitation for assessment proceedings under section 21. Since the petitioner was not properly served with the notice within the stipulated time frame, the court held that the assessment proceedings were barred by limitation. The court emphasized the importance of complying with statutory timelines to maintain the jurisdiction of such proceedings. Consequently, the court deemed the assessment proceedings as void due to the expiration of the limitation period.

4. Lastly, the petitioner sought relief for the return of seized documents and papers. The court noted that the respondents were willing to return the items seized from the petitioner's custody. Given this assurance, the court deemed it unnecessary to grant any specific relief regarding the seized documents and papers. Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, quashed the proceedings under section 21, and awarded costs to the petitioner, concluding the matter in favor of the petitioner.