Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX, LUCKNOW versus S/S SITARAM SANTOSH KUMAR GALLA VYAPARI, BELATAL HAMIRPUR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner Trade Tax, Lucknow v. S/S Sitaram Santosh Kumar Galla Vyapari, Belatal Hamirpur - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 1294 of 1998 [2005] RD-AH 2194 (30 August 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.55

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(1294) OF 1998

AND

TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(1296) OF 1998

The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P.,, Lucknow. ....Applicant

Versus

S/S Sitaram Santosh Kumar, Hamirpur. ....Opp. Party

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

These two revisions under section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 24.04.1998 for the assessment year 1984-85 both under the U.P. and Central Sales Tax Act, by which Tribunal has allowed the appeals of the dealer opposite party (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") and quashed the proceeding under section 21 of the Act on the ground that the notice under section 21 of the Act have not been served upon the dealer in accordance with Rule 77.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Perusal of the order shows that the notice under section 21 of the Act were alleged to have been served  on one Sri Hari Om on 15.03.1989. Dealer claimed that the business was closed in the year 1986-87 and Hari Om was neither partner nor adult male member of the family nor employed nor in any way authorised to receive the notice under section 21 of the Act and, therefore, the service of the notice under section 21 of the Act was not valid. Tribunal in the impugned order held that Hari Om was not the employee of the firm nor the family member of any of the partner of the firm. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that after the service of the notice, dealer participated in the proceeding and appeared before the assessing authority and therefore, the proceedings under section 21 of the Act should not be quashed. I do not agree with the submission of learned Standing Counsel. Mere participation in the proceeding is not sufficient. Notice under section 21 of the Act is jurisdictional notice and by proper service of the notice in accordance with Rule 77 assessing authority assume the jurisdiction to proceed. Therefore, proper service of the notice is condition precedent for the valid proceeding. In the absence of the proper service of the notices under section 21 of the Act authority can not assume the jurisdiction to proceed. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Laxmi Narain Vs. CST, reported in 1980 UPTC, 125.

In the result, both the revisions fail and are accordingly, dismissed.

Dt.30.08.2005

R./


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.