High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner Trade Tax,U.P.Lucknow v. Pradeep Kumar Vaish - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 229 of 1997  RD-AH 178 (13 January 2005)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.229 OF 1997
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P., Lucknow. ....Applicant
S/S Pradeep Kumar Vaish, Moradabad. ....Opp.party
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Present revision under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 14.08.1996 for the assessment year 1989-90 under section 21 of the Act.
Dealer/opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") is proprietorship concern of Sri Pradeep Kumar Vaish. Notice under section 21 of the Act was issued by the assessing authority and alleged to have been served on Rajeev Kumar Vaish, brother of Pradeep Kumar Vaish, proprietor of the firm. First appellate authority found that the service of the notice under section 21 of the Act was not proper and accordingly, held the order passed under section 21 of the Act illegal. Commissioner of Trade Tax filed appeal before the Tribunal, which was rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the notice was served on Rajeev Kumar Vaish, brother of Pradeek Kumar Vaish, who was residing in the same building and, therefore, service of the notice under section 21 of the Act was proper service in accordance to Rule 77. Learned counsel for the dealer submitted that Rajeev Kumar Vaish filed affidavit stating therein that the notice under section 21 of the Act was not served upon him. He further submitted that the first appellate authority had held that the brother does not come within the family and, therefore, service of the notice on Sri Rajeev Kumar Vaish was not valid.
I have perused the order of Tribunal and the authorities below.
First appellate authority held that Rajeev Kumar Vaish filed affidavit denying the service of the notice under section 21 of the Act. First appellate authority observed that in the report of the process server it is not mentioned that Rajeev Kumar Vaish after signature mentioned P.Vaish. First appellate authority further held that the brother can not be included in the family and accordingly, held the service of the notice invalid. View of the first appellate authority has been upheld by the Tribunal. I do not find any error in the order of Tribunal and the first appellate authority. First of all it is not clear whether notice has been served upon Rajeev Kumar Vaish, who has denied the service of the notice by filing an affidavit and to the contrary no material has been brought on record by revenue. Family of a person normally consists wife, son and daughter. Brother can not be included in the family. In the circumstances, order of the first appellate authority and the Tribunal are upheld.
In the result, revision fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.