2015 (6) TMI 1055 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of service of notice - Admittedly, the same was returned with a specific postal endorsement LEFT since the said office was closed during the month of May, 2011. Thereafter, the respondent has chosen to send the above notice by registered post to Thiru Ajay Metha, Director, No.A20, Anand Niketan, New Delhi-21 and the same also appears to have been served on the above address. Therefore, the defence raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no notice served on the registered office of the petitioner and served only at his residential address cannot be construed to be a value service of notice is rejected. When the respondent with all responsibility has served a notice at the residential address of the Director of the petitioner s company, it is the duty cast upon the petitioner to respond to the said notice by filing a detailed reply. But the petitioner has failed to file any objections. Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned order dated 13.03.2015 regarding tax and penalty confirmation based on lack of objection filing by petitioner. Dispute over notice delivery to registered business place and residential address. Argument against penalty levy due to improper notice service.

Analysis:
The Writ Petition challenges the impugned order confirming tax and penalty due to the petitioner's failure to object. The Assessing Officer sent a notice to the registered business place, which was returned as closed. Subsequently, a notice was sent by registered post to the Director's residential address in New Delhi, which was served. The petitioner's counsel argues that no notice was properly served on the registered office, thus no opportunity was given to represent the case.

The petitioner's counsel contends that the respondent failed to send a notice to the official address of the petitioner's company, leading to improper penalty levy. The absence of a valuable notice served at the Registered Office implies a lack of opportunity for the petitioner to present their case effectively.

The Judge finds no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The initial notice sent to the registered business place was returned as closed, prompting the respondent to send the notice to the Director's residential address in New Delhi, which was successfully served. The defense's claim of improper notice service at the registered office is dismissed. The petitioner's failure to respond to the notice by filing objections led to the impugned order. The Judge highlights that the impugned order can be appealed before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner within 30 days, emphasizing the availability of a statutory remedy for the petitioner.

Ultimately, the Writ Petition is dismissed, with no costs imposed. The Judge emphasizes the availability of an appeal process before the Appellate Authority for the petitioner to pursue.