High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
The Commissioner Trade Tax, Lucknow v. S/S Sitaram Santosh Kumar Galla Vyapari, Belatal Hamirpur - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 1294 of 1998  RD-AH 2194 (30 August 2005)
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(1294) OF 1998
TRADE TAX REVISION NO.(1296) OF 1998
The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P.,, Lucknow. ....Applicant
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.