Jurisdictional reassessment notice under sales tax law need not follow a rigid form if it clearly conveys proceedings and hearing.

A notice under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is jurisdictional, but it need not be in any particular form if it clearly informs the assessee that reassessment proceedings are being initiated and requires appearance. A mere formal defect does not invalidate the notice where its purport is understood and the assessee participates. Valid service of such notice within the statutory period also extends the time for completing reassessment, so the proceedings are not time-barred if the reassessment order is passed within the extended period recognised by the statute.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice issued under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was valid and sufficient to confer jurisdiction for reassessment proceedings; (ii) Whether the proceedings under section 21 were barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the notice issued under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was valid and sufficient to confer jurisdiction for reassessment proceedings.

Analysis: The notice served on the assessee specifically referred to section 21 and informed it of the adjourned hearing in proceedings under that provision. The law does not require any particular form of notice, so long as the assessee is apprised that proceedings under section 21 are being taken and is called upon to appear. A mere formal defect does not invalidate the notice if the assessee has understood its purport and participated in the proceedings.

Conclusion: The notice was held to be valid and sufficient, and the objection to jurisdiction failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings under section 21 were barred by limitation.

Analysis: Section 21 prescribed a limitation period for assessment or reassessment, but service of a valid notice within that period extended the time available for completion of the assessment. Since the notice was served on 6 August 1980 and the reassessment order was passed within the extended period recognised by the statutory scheme, the proceedings could not be treated as time-barred.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The revision was rejected because the reassessment notice was treated as effective and the assessment proceedings were held to be within time, leaving no basis to interfere with the orders below.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is jurisdictional, but it need not follow any particular form if it sufficiently informs the assessee that proceedings are being taken under that provision; such valid service within limitation extends the time for completing reassessment.

---