1968 (3) TMI 94 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of sales tax under U.P. Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act for the year 1964-65.
2. Service of assessment orders via registered post to a partnership firm.
3. Dismissal of appeals against assessment orders as barred by limitation.
4. Application for certiorari challenging the assessment orders.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a partnership firm, was assessed to sales tax under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1964-65 through ex parte assessment orders. Appeals against these orders were dismissed as time-barred by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, on 25th July, 1967. The petitioner seeks relief through a writ of certiorari challenging the assessment orders.

2. The issue of service of assessment orders via registered post to the petitioner was raised. The petitioner claimed that the registered envelope containing the orders was not handed over to them until 13th October, 1966. However, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) found that the envelope was delivered to a relation of the managing partner on 22nd February, 1966, and held that service was duly made. The legal presumption under section 27 of the U.P. General Clauses Act regarding service by post was considered, and it was concluded that the service was deemed effective on 22nd February, 1966.

3. The dismissal of the appeals by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) as time-barred raised a procedural issue. The petitioner contended that the appeals were delayed due to not receiving the assessment orders on time. However, the Court upheld the dismissal, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to establish sufficient grounds for the delay. The legal provisions regarding limitation periods for filing appeals were considered in this context.

4. The Court also addressed the petitioner's right to seek relief through revision under section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act as an alternative to invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was noted that the petitioner did not demonstrate any valid reason for resorting to the writ jurisdiction directly. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with costs, affirming the decision of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and upholding the assessment orders.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the sales tax assessment orders, ruling in favor of the tax authorities based on the deemed service of the orders via registered post and the lack of valid grounds for the delay in filing appeals. The Court highlighted the legal presumptions regarding service by post and the petitioner's failure to utilize the available statutory remedy of revision before seeking extraordinary relief through writ jurisdiction.