9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Proper service of assessment orders by affixture. 2. Delay in filing appeals. 3. Validity of the best judgment assessments. 4. Authority of the Entertainment Tax Officer and procedural compliance. Detailed Analysis 1. Proper Service of Assessment Orders by Affixture The core issue is whether the affixture of the assessment orders on June 6, 1987, constitutes proper service as per the Act and the Rules. The petitioner argued that the service by affixture should be the last resort after exhausting other modes of service as per Rule 52(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Entertainment Tax Rules, 1939. The petitioner relied on the Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Gopal Das Uttam Chand v. STO [1970] 25 STC 229, which emphasized that service by affixation should only be used if other modes are impracticable. The court noted that the wording in Rule 52(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Rules differs from the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, stating that "if any or all of the modes aforesaid is not practicable," service by affixation is permissible. The court concluded that the assessing authority must attempt any or all prescribed modes before resorting to affixation. 2. Delay in Filing Appeals The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the assessment orders until January 23, 1990, and filed appeals on January 29, 1990. The appeals were rejected by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner on June 26, 1990, as being time-barred by 3 years, 10 months, and 3 days. The petitioner argued that no show-cause notice or opportunity for a hearing was given, which led to the delayed filing. The court found that the affixation of notices was not properly conducted, thus invalidating the service and justifying the delay in filing appeals. 3. Validity of the Best Judgment Assessments The petitioner challenged the best judgment assessments made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, arguing that they were arbitrary and made without proper communication or opportunity for the petitioner to contest. The court noted that the assessment orders were served by affixture without proper procedural compliance, rendering the assessments questionable. 4. Authority of the Entertainment Tax Officer and Procedural Compliance The Entertainment Tax Officer claimed that the petitioner was fully aware of the tax assessments and that notices were served by affixture after refusal to accept them in person or by registered post. However, the court found that the assessing authority did not properly exercise discretion before resorting to service by affixture, as required by Rule 52(d). The records showed simultaneous attempts at service, which is not contemplated by the rule. The court emphasized that the assessing authority must apply its mind and decide that other modes are impracticable before ordering service by affixture. Conclusion The court allowed the civil revision petition, setting aside the order of the Entertainment Tax Appellate Deputy Commissioner. It directed the Appellate Deputy Commissioner to entertain and dispose of the appeals on merits. The petitioner was instructed to represent the appeals within two weeks from the receipt of the order, and a stay on the collection of tax was granted until the stay petition is disposed of by the appellate authority.
|
