Ex parte assessment and section 30 relief remain separate remedies; dismissal of the appeal did not bar the challenge to notice.

An ex parte assessment under the U.P. Sales Tax Act raised two separate matters: the propriety of proceeding ex parte and the quantum of assessment. The text states that an appeal lay only on the quantum side, while a grievance about lack of notice or sufficient cause for non-appearance had to be pursued by an application under section 30; because the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to decide the ex parte issue, the assessment did not merge with the appellate order for that purpose. The section 30 application therefore remained maintainable despite dismissal of the appeal, and the limitation objection based on a supposed time-barred reassessment was rejected as resting on an incorrect assumption.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under section 30 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 to set aside an ex parte assessment remained maintainable after an appeal against the assessment had been dismissed for want of proof of payment of admitted tax, and whether the assessment could be reopened under section 30 when the reassessment was said to be time-barred.

Analysis: An ex parte assessment comprises two distinct matters: the propriety of proceeding ex parte and the quantum of turnover or tax assessed. The appeal against the assessment order lies only on the quantum side, while the grievance that the assessee had no notice or was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing is to be pursued only by an application under section 30. Because the appellate authority, in dismissing the appeal against the assessment, had no jurisdiction to decide the propriety of the ex parte proceedings, the assessment order did not merge in the appellate order for that purpose. The two remedies were parallel and mutually exclusive, and dismissal of the appeal on the quantum did not render the section 30 application infructuous. On the limitation point, the premise that a fresh assessment would be time-barred was misconceived in the facts, since the ex parte assessment had been set aside in appeal and the question of limitation for giving effect to that order did not arise as suggested.

Conclusion: The application under section 30 was maintainable despite dismissal of the appeal against the assessment, and the first question was rightly answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee. The second question was not answered as it was based on an incorrect assumption of limitation.

---