2000 (1) TMI 959 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Proper service of pre-assessment notice.
2. Compliance with Rule 52 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959.
3. Efficacy of alternative remedies.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Proper service of pre-assessment notice
The petitioner argued that the assessment order was in violation of natural justice as no pre-assessment notice was served at the correct residential address. The petitioner contended that the assessing authority should have followed Rule 51(1)(d) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, which allows service of notice by affixture. The petitioner also raised concerns about the turnover estimation and penalty imposition. However, the respondent stated that notices were sent to known addresses, and the assessment order was served after the address change was ascertained. The Tribunal found that the assessing authority had sent notices to both business and residential addresses known to them, and the registered posts were returned. The Tribunal concluded that there was no failure in adhering to the rule regarding notice service.

Issue 2: Compliance with Rule 52 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959
The Tribunal examined Rule 52, which outlines various methods of serving notices. It was noted that the notices were sent to known addresses, and all practicable modes were exhausted by the assessing authority. The Tribunal referenced past cases where failure to send notices to the correct address led to challenges. In the present case, the Tribunal found that the notices were sent to known addresses, and the plea of non-compliance with Rule 52 was dismissed.

Issue 3: Efficacy of alternative remedies
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of pursuing statutory remedies, highlighting a case where a reassessment challenge was dismissed due to the availability of alternative remedies. The Tribunal noted that the petitioner had not pursued statutory appeals after receiving the assessment order, choosing to approach the Special Tribunal later. The Tribunal found that the petitioner allowed the matter to become final due to inaction, indicating laches on their part. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the original petition, emphasizing the importance of pursuing statutory remedies and observing that the petitioner's delay in taking action led to the matter becoming final.