9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. The appeal so filed was allowed vide order dated 2.7.1998 and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for determining the tax liability of the petitioner afresh, after affording opportunity of hearing. On remand a notice dated 21st May, 1999 was forwarded to the Assessee informing him of the next date fixed in the matter as 26.5.1999. It is alleged that copy of the said notice was served upon Sri Narsingh one of the partner of the petitioner firm. Sri Narsingh, after receiving the notice refused to accept the same and accordingly an endorsement was made on the notice itself by the process server. Treating the service sufficient on the basis of the aforesaid report, the Assessing Authority proceeded to re-determine the tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner for the purposes of challenging the tax liability as determined by the First Appellate Authority and affirmed by the Tribunal including the plea of violation of principles of natural justice because of non-service of notice in respect of proceedings before the Assessing Authority, which were scheduled and took place on 26.5.1999. 7. In the opinion of the Court, the Trade Tax Revision can be decided on a short ground namely the issue of service of notice upon the petitioner qua proceedings dated 26.5.1999 before the Assessing Authority. 8. From the record of the present revision it is apparently clear that the Assessing Authority forwarded a notice dated 21.5.1999 intimating the date after remand as 26.5.1999 through process server ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Authority was obliged to have sent a notice by registered post at the recorded address of the petitioner firm before proceeding ex parte. Such a procedure has not been followed for the reasons best known to the Assessing Authority. Reference in that regard may be had to the judgment of this Court reported in 2003 NTN (Vol. 23) 1040; 2004 (1) UPTC 279 M/s Ram Prakash Naresh Kumar, Hathras vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax. 11. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the ex parte assessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Authority against the petitioner cannot be said to be in conformity with law and the order passed by the First Appellate Authority as well as Tribunal in Second Appeal re-affirming such an assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
