1994 (1) TMI 249 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of ex parte best judgment assessment by the Assessing Authority.
2. Proper service of notice on the petitioner-corporation.
3. Compliance with Rule 69 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975.

The High Court considered a writ petition filed by M/s. Jindal Steel Corporation challenging ex parte best judgment assessment orders for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, closed its business at Faridabad and informed the authorities about its new Delhi address. The Assessing Authority passed an ex parte assessment order, which was upheld by the Tribunal. The petitioner contended that proper notice was not served at the Delhi address, leading to the injustice. The main issue was whether the Assessing Authority was justified in framing the ex parte assessment by effecting substituted service at the Faridabad address. The Court analyzed Rule 69 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, emphasizing the requirement of substituted service at the address communicated by the assessee after business closure. The Respondents acknowledged the communication of the Delhi address but failed to effect substituted service there. The Court found the service at the Faridabad address improper, considering the petitioner's relocation and communication of the new address. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, remitting the case to the Assessing Authority in Faridabad for a fresh decision, allowing the petitioner to produce necessary forms and fight the case on merits. The parties were directed to appear before the Assessing Authority for further proceedings.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment revolved around the validity of the ex parte assessment, the adequacy of notice service, and the compliance with Rule 69 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules. The Court emphasized the importance of proper service at the address communicated by the assessee, especially after a business closure, to ensure fairness and adherence to legal procedures. The decision to remit the case for a fresh decision by the Assessing Authority aimed at providing the petitioner with an opportunity to present relevant documents and contest the assessment on merit, addressing the alleged injustice resulting from improper service.