9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the methods prescribed in rule 63(a), (b) or (c) had been resorted to before the alleged affixture and then to pass a speaking order is warranted and justifiable in law? 3.. Is not the order passed by the Tribunal one giving power to the assessing authority to pass a speaking order stating fresh reasons that action under rule 63(a), (b) and (c) was not found feasible practicable and so action under rule 63(d) was resorted to and thus uphold the illegal order of assessment supported by documents which were not there before the assessing authority? The assessee was a registered dealer doing business in rice and cashew nuts under the name and style Pragathi Seva Traders at Kumbla. According to the assessee business was closed in S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt a letter dated August 21, 2000 informing that he was not served with the order. On receipt of that letter the assessing authority had sent a certified copy of the assessment order which is dated March 18, 2000 and was received by the assessee on October 26, 2000. The assessing authority had also suo motu exercised the powers under section 43 of the Act and revised the assessment and reduced the tax liability to Rs. 10,86,491. The assessee filed two appeals against those orders and those appeals were finally disposed of by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on December 22, 2000 setting aside both the orders under appeal and remitted the case back to the assessing authority for fresh disposal. The assessee took up the matter in appeal be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... including the Tribunal. Counsel narrated the history of the case as well as referred to the various averments contained in the revision memorandum and asserted that before affixing notice the procedure prescribed under rule 63(a), (b) and (c) were not followed. We have gone through the files made available and have gone through the pleadings and there is nothing to show that the assessing authority had followed the methods prescribed in rule 63(a), (b) and (c). This court in Ahammed Ali v. Sales Tax Officer, Tellicherry [1980] KLT 770 dealing with rule 63 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 held as follows: There is no whisper in the counter-affidavit that either the prerevision notice or the revised order of assessment had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents to say that proper and effective service had been made by a mere affixture of the notice or the order in conspicuous place at the last known place of business of the petitioner . In the absence of any material, in our view, the conclusion is irresistible that the assessee had not been properly served with the assessment order. Since the assessment order was not communicated to the assessee on or before March 31, 2000 the original order of assessment is barred by limitation. We may indicate that the specific case of the assessee is that he had stopped his business in September 1997, even before the alleged affixture of assessment order on March 28, 2000 and in the business premises of the assessee a new business venture by name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
