Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 1978 (9) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1978 (9) TMI 190 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues:
1. Validity of service of notice on the son of a partner of the firm.
2. Interpretation of Rule 77 regarding modes of service for a firm.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a question of law referred by the Revising Authority regarding the validity of serving notice of a revision hearing on the son of a partner of the firm. The issue arose when the notice was served on the son of a partner, and the assessee contended that this was not a valid service on the firm. The Judge (Revisions) had rejected this contention, leading to the reference to the High Court for opinion.

2. The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation of Rule 77, which outlines the modes of service for notices, summons, or orders under the Act. The relevant provision of Rule 77 states that service can be effected by tendering it to the dealer, his manager, agent, or leaving it at the last known place of business or residence, or giving it to an adult male member of the family if the dealer cannot be found easily. The counsel for the assessee argued that since the dealer in this case was a firm, the provision regarding service on an adult male member of the family did not apply.

3. The High Court delved into the interpretation of Rule 77 in the context of a firm. It was highlighted that while a firm is recognized as an assessable body under the Sales Tax Act, it does not have a family like a natural person. Therefore, the provision allowing service on an adult male member of the family does not extend to a firm as it lacks the characteristics of a natural person. Consequently, serving notice on the son of a partner of the firm was deemed invalid as it did not comply with the requirements of Rule 77.

4. In conclusion, the High Court answered the referred question in the negative, favoring the assessee and ruling against the Department. The Court held that the service of notice on the son of a partner of the firm was not valid under Rule 77. Additionally, the Court awarded costs to the assessee amounting to Rs. 200.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates