1965 (8) TMI 70 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Computation of the period of limitation for filing an appeal under section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act based on the date of service of notice of assessment.
2. Rejection of the appeal by the Sales Tax Commissioner as barred by time.
3. Preclusion from challenging the assessment order in court if the right of appeal was not availed.
4. Validity of the service of the notice of assessment.
5. Addressing the legality of the notice of demand in recovery proceedings.

Analysis:

1. The judgment dealt with the computation of the period of limitation for filing an appeal under section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The court clarified that the period is to be computed from the date of service of the notice of assessment, not the assessment order. The appellant's appeal was rejected as time-barred by the Sales Tax Commissioner, which was deemed correct by the court. The court emphasized that the period of limitation must commence from the date of service of the notice of assessment, as prescribed by section 9.

2. The Sales Tax Commissioner's rejection of the appeal as barred by time was upheld by the court. The court stated that even if it did not agree with the decision, it could not quash the order by certiorari unless the decision was manifestly erroneous. The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed period of limitation for filing appeals.

3. The court held that if an appellant fails to avail themselves of the right to appeal, they are precluded from challenging the assessment order in court. The appellant had an adequate remedy through the appeal process, and not availing of it barred them from invoking the court's extraordinary jurisdiction. The court refused to entertain any challenges to the assessment order due to the failure to utilize the available departmental remedy of appeal.

4. The validity of the service of the notice of assessment was discussed in the judgment. The Sales Tax Commissioner's determination of the service being valid was upheld by the court. The court declined to delve into the factual aspects of the service and accepted the Commissioner's finding as not being manifestly wrong, thereby affirming the validity of the service.

5. The judgment briefly addressed the contention regarding the legality of the notice of demand in recovery proceedings. The court noted that since no order in recovery proceedings was challenged, it was unnecessary to delve into the validity of the notice of demand or the legality of the recovery proceedings. The court refrained from examining these issues due to the lack of challenge in the petition.

6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the special appeal summarily, affirming the decisions made by the Sales Tax Commissioner and emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and timelines in matters of tax assessment and appeals.