Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether service of the demand notices by affixture under rule 53 was valid when the assessing authority had not formed the requisite opinion that service by the other modes was not practicable.
Analysis: Rule 53 provided alternative modes of service, but service by affixture was permissible only when none of the earlier modes was practicable. The authority competent to form that opinion was the assessing authority, and not a subordinate officer such as the Inspector. The record did not show that the assessing authority itself considered and decided that service could not be effected by the other prescribed modes. The report of the Inspector could not substitute for the statutory satisfaction of the assessing authority. In these circumstances, the demand notices were not validly served, and recovery proceedings based on such notices could not lawfully continue.
Conclusion: The service of the demand notices by affixture was invalid, and the revision petitions were rightly allowed in favour of the dealer.
Ratio Decidendi: Before substituted service by affixture can be resorted to under the service rule, the competent assessing authority must itself form the statutory opinion, on the basis of an attempted or considered resort to the ordinary modes, that service by the other prescribed methods is not practicable.