2003 (2) TMI 530 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notice under Section 21 of U. P. Sales Tax Act
2. Jurisdictional requirements for assessment under Central Sales Tax Act
3. Applicability of precedents on notice validity in tax assessments

Issue 1: Validity of notice under Section 21 of U. P. Sales Tax Act

The revision filed under Section 11 of U. P. Sales Tax Act challenged an order related to assessment year 1978-79, where a notice under Section 21 was issued based on information received, alleging non-disclosure of a supply of Gutti. The dealer contended that the supply was made from Faridabad to Tuglakabagh in Haryana, not falling under U. P. jurisdiction. The First Appellate Authority observed a lack of proper hearing opportunity and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh notice under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that technical defects in the notice did not warrant quashing the proceedings.

Issue 2: Jurisdictional requirements for assessment under Central Sales Tax Act

The applicant argued that the notice under Section 21 is a jurisdictional requirement, citing precedents like Laxmi Narain Anand Prakssh vs. CST 1980 UPTC 125 and Narain Chetty vs. Income Tax Commissioner 35 ITR 388, emphasizing the importance of a valid notice for jurisdiction. The applicant contended that the order passed under the Central Sales Tax Act lacked jurisdiction due to the notice being issued under the U. P. Trade Tax Act. The judgment highlighted that the absence of material supporting interstate sales rendered the direction for a fresh notice under the Central Sales Tax Act unjustified.

Issue 3: Applicability of precedents on notice validity in tax assessments

The judgment referenced cases like Kishan Chand vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1971 UPTC 13 and Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. Seva Singh Mangal Singh 1972 UPTC 537, emphasizing strict compliance with Section 21 notice requirements. Precedents such as Victor Cables Corporation vs. State of U. P. 1982 STD 104 and Madan Lal Agarwal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1982 UPTC 1069 underscored the significance of a valid notice as a condition precedent for assessment validity. The judgment concluded that the defect in the notice under the U. P. Trade Tax Act rendered the subsequent assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act illegal and without jurisdiction, warranting quashing of the order instead of remanding the case.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and quashed the Assistant Commissioner's and Sales Tax Officer's orders, declaring the revision as allowed. The judgment reiterated the criticality of a valid notice under Section 21 for jurisdictional validity in tax assessments, relying on established legal precedents to support its decision.