1974 (7) TMI 104 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to decide on the validity of service of demand notices under section 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with two connected revision petitions challenging an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate regarding the recovery of arrears of sales tax. The dealer contended that the notices of demand were not properly served, questioning the validity of the recovery proceedings. The Magistrate ruled that he had no jurisdiction to determine the adequacy of notice service, leading to the dealer filing revision petitions.

The dealer's counsel argued that as per the Rules under the Act, notice service should follow specific procedures before resorting to affixture. The counsel cited rule 53, emphasizing that service by affixture should be the last option if other modes of service are impracticable. The counsel relied on judgments from the Allahabad High Court to support the contention that service by affixture should be a last resort after exhausting other methods.

Contrary to the dealer's argument, the department's counsel referred to a Madras High Court decision, stating that service modes under rule 53 are alternative, not cumulative. The Madras High Court held that all modes need not be exhausted before resorting to service by affixture. The court noted that the assessing authority can choose the mode of service, including affixture, based on practicality.

The court analyzed the provisions of rule 53 in comparison to the Code of Civil Procedure rules for service of notice. It emphasized that substituted service by affixture should be a last resort after attempting other modes of service. The court highlighted that the assessing authority must form an opinion on the impracticability of other modes before ordering service by affixture.

Ultimately, the court found that there was no evidence of the assessing authority determining the impracticability of other service modes before resorting to affixture. The court concluded that the notices of demand were not validly served, rendering the recovery proceedings premature and not permissible to proceed. The court allowed the revision petitions, overturning the Magistrate's order and directing the department to serve valid notices of demand before continuing with tax recovery proceedings.