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 a notice issued for reassessment under section 15(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, was validly served when delivered to the dealer's manager who was not an authorised agent under the rules, and whether such service conferred jurisdiction to reopen and complete reassessment.
Analysis: Service of a valid notice was held to be the foundation of jurisdiction for reassessment. The statutory scheme required notice to be served on the dealer, and the service provisions in the rules could not enlarge that requirement. Under the relevant rules, personal service could be effected only on the dealer himself or on an agent within the limited meaning assigned by rule 2(i), read with the appearance provisions in section 43. The manager in question had no written authority and was not shown to be an authorised agent. The Court also held that appearance before the taxing authority to contest service and, in the alternative, to meet the merits did not amount to waiver or acquiescence in a jurisdictional defect.
Conclusion: The notice was not validly served, the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction, and the answer was in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: For reassessment under section 15(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, due service of a valid notice on the dealer or an authorised agent is a condition precedent to jurisdiction, and defective service cannot be cured by appearance or waiver.