Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE COMMISSIONER TRADE TAX, UP versus S/S SEGA INVESTMENT LIMITED

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The Commissioner Trade Tax, Up v. S/S Sega Investment Limited - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 2960 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 18592 (2 November 2006)

 

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

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Heard learned Standing Counsel.

It appears that the proceeding under section 21 of the Act was initiated for the assessment year 1993-94. Dealer challenged the validity of the proceeding on the ground that the notice under section 21 of the Act was not served in accordance to Rule 77. Tribunal by the impugned order held that the notice was not properly served. It appears that while tendering the notice for service, it was mentioned that in case if the dealer was not available the same may be affixed. At the back of the notice, process server reported that the notice was affixed at the given address and there was no witness available. On these facts, Tribunal held that the notice has not been served to the dealer in accordance to Rule 77.

Heard learned Standing Counsel.

Learned Standing Counsel is not able to establish that the notice was served in accordance to Rule 77. In case, if the notice could not be served personally, the same should be sent by registered post and in case, if by both the methods, service of the notice was not possible, then method for affixation should be adopted after recording reasons. It appears that in the present case, while issuing notice, order was passed that in case if the dealer would not be available, notice may be affixed. Further the report of the process server also reveals that such report does not justify affixation in accordance to Rule 77.

In the result, revision has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dated.02.11.2006.

VS.2960/04.


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.