Service of notice as a jurisdictional requirement under sales tax rules was upheld, but due service was proved on the record.

Service of notice on the dealer is a jurisdictional prerequisite under rule 12(2)(a) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957, because the rule requires actual service before assessment can proceed. Mere participation by the dealer does not cure non-service, and waiver or estoppel cannot confer jurisdiction where the statute makes notice mandatory. On the facts, however, the record showed issue and receipt of notice, adjournment requests, and appearance with records, so valid service was proved and the assessment proceedings were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service of notice on the dealer is a condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction under rule 12(2)(a) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957; (ii) whether participation by the dealer can validate proceedings where notice has not been duly served; (iii) whether valid service of notice was in fact effected in the present case.

Issue (i): Whether service of notice on the dealer is a condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction under rule 12(2)(a) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules, 1957.

Analysis: The language of rule 12(2)(a), read with rule 12(5), requires the Commissioner to serve notice on the dealer before proceeding with assessment. The rule is imperative and contemplates actual service, not mere issuance. The scheme of the Rules, read with the auxiliary provisions of the Orissa sales tax law made applicable by rule 22, supports the conclusion that notice is the jurisdictional foundation for the assessment proceeding.

Conclusion: Service of notice on the dealer is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction under rule 12(2)(a).

Issue (ii): Whether participation by the dealer can validate proceedings where notice has not been duly served.

Analysis: Where the statute makes service of notice a jurisdictional requirement, absence of such service cannot be cured by appearance or participation of the dealer. Waiver and estoppel do not confer jurisdiction where none exists. A proceeding initiated without the mandatory notice remains invalid despite participation.

Conclusion: Participation by the dealer does not validate the assessment or confer jurisdiction where statutory service of notice is absent.

Issue (iii): Whether valid service of notice was in fact effected in the present case.

Analysis: The record showed issue of notice in the prescribed form, an application admitting receipt of notice and seeking time, subsequent requests for adjournment, and appearance with books of account and sales statements. On this material, the factual assertion of non-service was not accepted.

Conclusion: Valid service of notice was effected in the present case.

Final Conclusion: Although the statutory rule makes service of notice mandatory and participation cannot cure a jurisdictional defect, the factual record established valid service here, so the assessment proceedings were upheld and the writ petitions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing rule expressly requires the assessing authority to serve notice on the dealer before assessment, service is jurisdictional and cannot be dispensed with by participation; however, the proceeding is valid if the record proves due service.

---