9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (8) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the negative, whether the service of notice could be treated as falling under clause (b) of rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules?" The assessee is a dealer in cloth at Tehri Garhwal. The assessment year involved is 1955-56. The assessee was assessed to sales tax for that year on 31st January, 1957. Later on, however, information was received by the Sales Tax Officer that the assessee had imported cloth worth much more than what he had shown in the course of the original assessment proceedings. The Sales Tax Officer being of the opinion that a part of the turnover of the assessee had escaped assessment, reopened the assessee's case under section 21 of the Act. The notice under section 21 of the Act is stated to have been served on 1st M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eof in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence." A plain reading of this rule shows that four alternative modes of service mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) have been provided. Clause (d), however, provides that the service by affixation can be resorted to only if none of the other modes is practicable. It follows, therefore, that whenever recourse is desired to be taken to the mode of service mentioned in clause (d), the other modes should be tried first, unless it is shown that none of the other modes was practicable. Out of the two questions referred to us, question No. (1) proceeds on the assumption that the modes mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) were not resorted to. That strictly is not correct, beca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b). Now, whether a particular mode is practicable or not is a matter to be decided by the Sales Tax Officer and if the Sales Tax Officer after applying his mind to the facts of the case expressed the opinion that service by other modes was not practicable, it was legitimate for him to have ordered the service to be effected through affixation. But that has not been done in the instant case. What appears to have happened is, as is evident from the order of the appellate authority, that the process-server was instructed by the Sales Tax Officer that in case the latter was not able to effect personal service upon the assessee, he could resort to service by affixation. We are of opinion that such a procedure is not warranted by law. Rule 77 cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een effected in the instant case is contrary to the provisions of rule 77. Question No. (1), therefore, has to be answered in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the department. As regards question No. (2), the judge (Revisions) took the view that service by affixation could be treated to be a service under clause (b) of rule 77. This is obviously an incorrect view. Clause (b) requires the notice to be left at the place of business of the assessee which contemplates that the business place would be accessible. Leaving a notice at the business place of the assessee means leaving it inside the business premises at a place where the assessee is likely to find it when he returns to his business place. When the business place is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
