1985 (8) TMI 345 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
2. Timeliness of proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
3. Merits of the case and remand for fresh consideration.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act:
The primary issue raised by the assessee was regarding the service of notice under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The assessee contended that no valid notice was served, making the proceedings void. The notice dated 30th July, 1980, was argued to be merely an intimation of an adjourned hearing date and not a proper notice under Section 21. However, it was undisputed that the notice mentioned Section 21 and was served on the assessee on 6th August, 1980. The court referred to the precedent set in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Martand Pharmacy, which established that a notice mentioning Section 21 and informing the assessee of the proceedings is sufficient. Thus, the court found that the notice was valid and provided adequate information about the nature of the proceedings.

2. Timeliness of Proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act:
The assessee argued that the notice under Section 21 was barred by time, as no proceedings were initiated within four years from the end of the assessment year. The court examined the relevant provisions of Section 21, noting that the assessment for the year 1975-76 could be completed by 31st December, 1982, due to amendments made by the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1981. Since the notice was issued on 30th July, 1980, and the assessment order was passed on 30th August, 1980, the court concluded that the proceedings were timely and the contention was misconceived.

3. Merits of the Case and Remand for Fresh Consideration:
Regarding the merits, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) had remanded the case to the assessing authority for a fresh decision based on material evidence that had not been properly scrutinized. The court noted that it would still be open for the assessee to argue that the notice should be dismissed on merits before the Sales Tax Officer. Since the matter was remanded, the court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Conclusion:
The revision was dismissed, with the court upholding the validity and timeliness of the notice under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The merits of the case were left to be reconsidered by the assessing authority as directed by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs.