Accountant not agent; service invalid. Timely appeal upheld. High Court rules in favor of assessee.

The High Court held that the accountant was not considered the agent of the assessee under Rule 77(1)(a) of the Sales Tax Rules as there was no evidence of written authorization. Consequently, the service of the assessment order on the accountant was deemed invalid. The Court determined that the appeal filed by the assessee was within the prescribed period of limitation, considering the service on the secretary as the relevant date. As a result, the appeal was deemed timely, and the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, awarding costs amounting to Rs. 200.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the accountant of the assessee is considered the applicant's agent under rule 77(1)(a) of the Sales Tax RulesRs.
2. Whether the service of the assessment order on the accountant was valid and legally binding on the applicantRs.
3. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee was within the prescribed period of limitationRs.

Analysis:
The case involved the assessment of a cooperative society to sales tax ex parte, where the assessment order was served on the society's accountant and later on the secretary. The appellate court objected that the appeal was beyond time based on the initial service date. The society argued that service on the accountant was not valid, and only the service on the secretary should be considered for the appeal's limitation period calculation. The Judge (Appeals) upheld the service on the accountant as valid, dismissing the appeal as time-barred and rejecting the condonation of delay application. The assessee's revision was unsuccessful, leading to questions of law being submitted to the High Court.

Regarding the first issue, the High Court analyzed Rule 77(1)(a) and Rule 77-A of the Sales Tax Rules, emphasizing that only persons authorized in writing by the dealer, such as lawyers, accountants, or authorized agents, can accept notices on behalf of the dealer. In this case, it was found that there was no evidence of the accountant being authorized in writing by the dealer, making the service on the accountant invalid. Thus, the accountant was not considered the agent of the assessee under Rule 77(1)(a).

Concerning the second issue, the High Court concluded that the service of the assessment order on the accountant was not valid and legally binding on the applicant due to the lack of written authorization for the accountant to accept notices on behalf of the dealer. Therefore, the service on the accountant did not meet the requirements of Rule 77-A, rendering it ineffective.

Lastly, on the third issue, the High Court determined that the appeal filed by the assessee was within the prescribed period of limitation since the relevant date for computation should have been the service on the secretary, which was deemed valid. Consequently, the appeal was considered timely, and the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, granting costs amounting to Rs. 200.

In conclusion, the High Court found that the accountant was not the agent of the assessee, the service on the accountant was invalid, and the appeal was within the limitation period. The reference was answered accordingly, and the assessee was awarded costs as assessed.

---