1990 (7) TMI 325 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of service of statutory notices by the process server.
2. Rejection of applications under section 24(1) of the Act to refer a question of law to the High Court.
3. Sufficiency of notice by registered post.
4. Decision on whether refusal of intimation sent by registered post is valid service of notice.
5. Interpretation of Rule 84 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules regarding service of notice.

Analysis:

1. The judgment involved three applications filed under section 24(2)(b) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act by the State of Orissa concerning the assessment of a dealer's escaped turnover. The dealer challenged the assessment orders based on the service of notices by the process server, leading to appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal found the service of notices by the process server invalid and annulled the assessments.

2. The State of Orissa sought to refer a question of law to the High Court under section 24(1) of the Act regarding the validity of statutory notices. The Tribunal declined to state a case based on the majority view that the question of validity of service of statutory notices is a question of fact, resulting in the rejection of the applications.

3. The debate centered on the sufficiency of notice by registered post, with the Chairman finding that the refusal of the subsequent intimation sent by registered post was immaterial. The Tribunal was urged to call for a statement of the case under section 24(3) due to the question of law arising from this issue.

4. The Court addressed the question of law arising from the refusal of intimation sent by registered post, emphasizing that even if not raised, if decided, it constitutes a valid question. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal's decision to refuse to state a case on this issue, highlighting the importance of addressing it.

5. The interpretation of Rule 84 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules was crucial in determining the validity of the refusal of the registered letter as a service of notice. The Court concluded that the refusal of the registered letter constituted valid service of notice based on the provisions of the rule and legal principles.

6. The Court ultimately directed the Tribunal to pass an order under section 24(5) of the Act to remand the matters to the Sales Tax Officer for completing the assessment afresh. The judgment highlighted the importance of early disposal to benefit both parties and the public interest in tax matters.

In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the service of statutory notices, the rejection of applications for reference, and the sufficiency of notice by registered post. The interpretation of relevant rules and legal principles played a significant role in determining the validity of the refusal of the registered letter as a service of notice.