Valid service of reassessment notice is a jurisdictional ; service on an unauthorised employee cannot cure the defect.

Valid service of a reassessment notice is a statutory precondition to jurisdiction: where the governing Act and Rules require service on the dealer or on an agent authorised in writing, service on a mere employee is ineffective in law. The text also states that a jurisdictional objection can be raised at a later stage when the defect appears on the record, because earlier silence does not cure want of jurisdiction. Participation in reassessment proceedings cannot confer authority where valid notice was never served, and waiver cannot validate the defect. The reassessment proceedings and orders are therefore treated as bad in law for want of proper service.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee could raise the objection to the validity of service of reassessment notices at the rectification stage; (ii) whether service of the reassessment notice on an employee who was not an authorised agent was valid; and (iii) whether reassessment proceedings and the reassessment orders were without jurisdiction for want of valid service of notice.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee could raise the objection to the validity of service of reassessment notices at the rectification stage.

Analysis: The objection went to the root of the Sales Tax Officer's jurisdiction. The factual basis was already on record and was not in dispute. A jurisdictional defect can be raised whenever it is noticed, and the earlier failure to object does not bar consideration of the point.

Conclusion: The objection was rightly allowed to be raised at the later stage and was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether service of the reassessment notice on an employee who was not an authorised agent was valid.

Analysis: Under section 15 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, read with rule 47(1)(i) and rule 2(i) of the Bombay Sales Tax (Procedure) Rules, 1954, notice had to be served on the dealer or on an agent authorised in writing to appear under section 43. Service on a mere employee who was not such an agent did not satisfy the statutory requirement. The requirement of proper service was not a mere formality but a necessary condition for valid initiation of reassessment.

Conclusion: Service on the employee was invalid and was against the assessee only in the sense that the department's contention failed; the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether reassessment proceedings and the reassessment orders were without jurisdiction for want of valid service of notice.

Analysis: Valid service of notice under section 15 was a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment. Since the notice was not served on the dealer or an authorised agent as required by the Rules, the reassessing authority did not acquire jurisdiction. Participation in the proceedings without objection could not confer jurisdiction where none existed, and waiver could not cure the defect.

Conclusion: The reassessment proceedings and orders were without jurisdiction and bad in law, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The references were answered against the revenue and the reassessment notices and orders were held invalid for want of proper service, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a reassessment statute makes valid service of notice a statutory precondition, notice must be served on the dealer or on the authorised agent specified by the governing rules; service on any other person is no service in law, and participation by the assessee cannot confer jurisdiction or amount to waiver of the defect.

---