Registered notice to firm's address satisfies service rule; unsupported denial of partnership cannot defeat sales tax recovery.

Compliance with Rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules was sufficient where notices were sent by registered post to the firm's address; individual service on each partner was not required. The petitioner's bare denial of partnership, unsupported by any material, was insufficient to displace the assessing authority's finding based on enquiries and official confirmation. As no procedural defect or factual basis was shown to invalidate the assessment or recovery action, the writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner had established that he was not a partner of the firm and was therefore not liable for the sales tax dues assessed against it. (ii) Whether the assessment proceedings were vitiated for want of personal service of notice on the petitioner.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner had established that he was not a partner of the firm and was therefore not liable for the sales tax dues assessed against it.

Analysis: The petitioner made only a bald denial of any connection with the firm and produced no material to support his claim. The assessing authority had made enquiries, obtained confirmation from the excise authorities, and proceeded on credible information that the petitioner was one of the partners. In the absence of contrary evidence, no clear finding could be recorded in the writ proceedings that the petitioner was not a partner.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment proceedings were vitiated for want of personal service of notice on the petitioner.

Analysis: Rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, as it stood in 1969, required service of notice by registered post on the firm at its address and did not require individual service on each partner. The assessing authority complied with that mode by sending notices by registered post twice to the firm's address, so the procedure adopted was in conformity with the rule.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: No procedural defect or factual basis was shown to invalidate the assessment or recovery action, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute or rule prescribes service of notice on a firm by registered post at its address, compliance with that mode is sufficient and a bare denial of partnership, unsupported by evidence, does not displace the assessment or recovery proceedings.

---