1976 (2) TMI 168 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court rules service of assessment order on employee without proper authority invalid. Distinction between agent and servant emphasized. Revision dismissed for lack of delay condonation application and medical certificate. Costs awarded to assessee.

The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that service of the assessment order on an employee without proper authority was invalid. The court ... - Issues:1. Service of assessment order on an employee without authority2. Dismissal of revision due to delay condonation application and medical certificateAnalysis:Issue 1: Service of assessment order on an employee without authorityIn this case, the dealer carried on business in bhang without maintaining regular accounts. The dealer contended that the turnover was below the taxable limit, but a best judgment assessment was made, fixing the turnover at Rs. 22,500. An appeal was dismissed as time-barred, leading to a revision. The notice of the assessment order and demand notice was served on an employee of the dealer, Jagannath Prasad, who was later dismissed. The revising authority upheld the service on Jagannath Prasad, considering it sufficient. The court analyzed rules 77 and 77-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, emphasizing the distinction between an agent and a servant. The court highlighted that service on a servant cannot be equated with service on an agent, as the law recognizes a difference between the two roles. The court held that there was no evidence to show that Jagannath Prasad was authorized to receive the notice on behalf of the dealer, concluding that service on a servant does not fulfill the requirements of rule 77. The court answered the first question in favor of the assessee, ruling that service on Jagannath Prasad was not valid.Issue 2: Dismissal of revision due to delay condonation application and medical certificateThe revising authority dismissed the revision due to the absence of an application for condonation of delay and a medical certificate regarding the illness of an individual. The court did not address the second question in the judgment, returning it unanswered. The court awarded costs to the assessee and assessed the counsel's fee at Rs. 100. The judgment focused primarily on the issue of service of the assessment order on an employee without proper authority, providing a detailed analysis of the legal principles governing the distinction between an agent and a servant. The court's decision highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory requirements for service of notices, emphasizing the need for authorization when serving legal documents on behalf of a party.