9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Validity of service of notice to legal representative - Compliance with procedural requirements for service of notice - Effect of non-compliance with procedural requirements on revision orders Analysis: The judgment pertains to 12 appeals against revision orders of the CWT for asst. yrs. 1963-64 to 1974-75. The primary issue revolves around the service of notice to the legal representative of the deceased assessee, A.T. Balakrishnan. The controversy arises from whether the notice was served in accordance with the provisions of the WT Act. The Commissioner claimed that the notice was served on the legal representative, Sri B. Bose, through the assessee's Accountant, Sri Mahalingam. However, departmental records revealed that the notice was served by affixture due to the unavailability of legal heirs. The Tribunal held that this method of service did not comply with the prescribed procedures under the CPC, specifically O.V.R. 19, rendering the service invalid. The departmental representative contended that even if there was an irregularity in the service, it should not invalidate the proceedings under section 42C of the WT Act. However, the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that the failure to comply with O.V.R. 19 constituted not a mere irregularity but an illegality and a legal infirmity. As the revision orders were passed without affording the opportunity of being heard, they were deemed void ab initio. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that cancellation of the orders, rather than remand, was the appropriate course of action. In conclusion, all 12 appeals were allowed, and the revision orders of the CWT for the respective years were canceled. The judgment underscores the significance of adhering to procedural requirements, particularly in matters of service of notice to ensure the principles of natural justice are upheld in legal proceedings.
|
