1975 (11) TMI 147 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Proper compliance of the provisions of rule 68 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Bombay High Court involved a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, regarding the compliance of rule 68 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The case stemmed from an ex parte assessment of the assessees by the Sales Tax Officer, which led to appeals before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and the Sales Tax Tribunal. The primary contention was the service of the notice for assessment, specifically whether it was served on the duly authorized agent of the assessees as required by rule 68. The Tribunal concluded that the notice was served on the agent of the assessees, based on the acceptance of previous assessment orders by the assessees without contesting the service of notices on the same individual. The Tribunal found sufficient evidence to infer that the person receiving the notice was duly authorized by the assessees.

The judgment delved into the interpretation of rule 68, emphasizing that the notice should be served on a person declared by the addressee or a duly authorized agent, among others. It was clarified that the agent authorized under rule 68 need not be the same as defined in rule 2(b) and could be authorized orally or in writing. The court considered precedents cited by the parties, including a case from the Allahabad High Court, to distinguish the relevance of previous acceptance of notices in determining authorization. The judgment highlighted that the mere acceptance of notices by an individual in the past does not necessarily establish authorization unless there is evidence of explicit consent by the addressee.

Moreover, the court discussed a case from the Mysore High Court concerning the acceptance of service based on appeals filed by the assessee, emphasizing the distinction in the circumstances from the present case. Another case from the Rangoon High Court was examined, which involved a different statutory provision for notice service, indicating the inapplicability of that decision to the matter at hand. Ultimately, the court upheld the Tribunal's conclusion, stating that there was ample material on record to support the inference that the person served with the notice was indeed the agent of the assessees. Consequently, the court answered the reference in the affirmative, requiring the assessees to bear the costs of the reference.

In summary, the judgment thoroughly analyzed the compliance of rule 68 in the context of notice service under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, emphasizing the importance of explicit authorization for receipt of notices. The decision relied on precedents to establish the criteria for determining authorization and concluded that the evidence presented justified the inference that the individual served with the notice was the duly authorized agent of the assessees.