1997 (1) TMI 518 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the service of the assessment order on the assessee.
2. Justification for excusing the delay in filing the appeal.
3. Interpretation of rule 52(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959.
4. Applicability of previous court decisions on the current case.
5. Compliance with the provisions of section 31 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case revolved around the validity of the service of the assessment order on the assessee. The assessee contended that the assessment order was not served on them, and they only became aware of it when the revenue sought to recover the due amount after ten years. The Revenue argued that the assessment order was served through affixture as per rule 52(d) of the Rules.

2. The Tribunal observed that the service by affixture can only be resorted to after exhausting other modes of service as prescribed under the Rules. The Tribunal concluded that the service of the assessment order by affixture was not valid in law, and there were valid grounds to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

3. The Court analyzed rule 52(1) of the Rules, emphasizing that service should be effected in any of the prescribed ways, including giving it to the dealer, sending it by registered post, or affixing it at the last known place of business or residence. The Court highlighted that in this case, even the mode of service by registered post was not utilized before resorting to affixture.

4. The Court distinguished a previous decision where service by affixture was deemed justified after attempting other modes of service, which was not the case here. It was emphasized that before resorting to affixture service, there should be a finding by the assessing authority that other prescribed modes were not practicable, which was absent in this case.

5. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the appeal period should begin from the date the order was served on the assessee as per section 31 of the Act. Since there was no proper service as per rule 52(1), there was no delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Court dismissed the tax case, stating that the delay in filing the appeal was unjustified due to the lack of valid service of the assessment order.

In conclusion, the Court's decision was based on the lack of proper service of the assessment order and the failure to comply with the prescribed modes of service before resorting to affixture. The judgment highlighted the importance of following procedural requirements in tax cases to ensure fairness and adherence to the law.