9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Sales Tax Officer and contested the said notice under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that the notice was invalid and beyond time and also on merit it was liable to be dismissed. The Sales Tax Officer assessed tax under section 21 of the Act for the year in question. The assessee went up in first appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (judicial) who set aside the order of the assessing authority and remanded the case back to the Sales Tax Officer for deciding it again on merit inasmuch as according to him the facts were not properly appreciated by the assessing authority. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Commissioner (judicial) the assessee preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal which dismissed the same. The assessee has come to this Court in the instant revision. I have heard Sri R.K. Agarwal, counsel for the assessee, and the learned standing counsel appearing for the revenue. Counsel for the assessee firstly raised the point regarding the service of notice under section 21 of the Act and contended that no valid notice under section 21 of the Act was served upon the assessee and in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cluding that proceedings under section 21 have been started by the Sales Tax Officer against him, and they have been adjourned to 17th March, 1962, on which date he should put in appearance. As is apparent from the order sheet, the assessee did put in appearance and objected to the proceedings both on facts and law. This being so, the notice of 6th March, 1962, though only intimating the adjourned date of hearing of the proceedings under section 21, can be treated as a notice under section 21." In view of the said proposition of law the contention raised on behalf of the assessee is not sustainable and is liable to be rejected inasmuch as the notice clearly mentioned section 21 of the Act and it was a sufficient information about the nature of proceedings in which the assessee was to appear. Counsel for the assessee then contended that even if the notice under section 21 of the Act was a valid one, it was barred by time inasmuch as no proceedings had been initiated within four years from the end of the year in question. This contention of the assessee is also fallacious. In order to appreciate the aforesaid controversy it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not want to express any opinion on merits. In the result the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. Appendix [The judgment of C.S.P. SINGH, J., of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Martand Pharmacy (Sales Tax Reference No. 494 of 1976 decided on 28th February, 1979) is printed below COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW V. MARTAND PHARMACY SINGH, J.-The Revising Authority, Meerut, has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this Court: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the question whether the notice under section 21 was served on the assessee was open to be canvassed after remand? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee had due notice of the proceedings under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act?" The reference is being treated as a revision in view of section 20(6-A) of U.P. Ordinance No. 27 of 1978. The two questions in dispute in the present revision are as to whether the assessee had due notice of proceedings under section 21 of the Act and, secondly, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice under section 21 of the Act was served on the assessee in accordance with law. A revision filed against this order by the Commissioner of Sales Tax failed, and hence the present reference, which has been converted into a revision. As has been stated earlier, the department relied on two notices, one dated 17th April, 1961, and the other dated 6th March, 1962, for establishing that the assessee had notice of the proceedings, and that the proceedings were not barred by time. So far as the notice dated 17th April, 1961, is concerned, that was served on one Sri O.P. Sharma, and not on the proprietor of the firm. This notice has rightly been held by the appellate authority and the revising authority not to be sufficient for purposes of section 21 of the Act. The real controversy is as regards the second notice dated 6th March, 1962, the copy of this notice is not on the record. There is a receipt of slip in a printed form, which states that proceedings under section 21 of the Act have been adjourned for 17th March, 1962. In the objection filed by the assessee, it is admitted that this notice was received by him. Although this notice is not the initial notice under section 21 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
