TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Invalid Affixation Notice: Tribunal Dismisses Revisions, Emphasizes Notice Service</h1> The Tribunal held that service of notice through affixation was not valid under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The decision aligned with the ... - Issues:1. Validity of service of notice under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 through affixation.2. Reopening of assessment order based on escaped turnover.3. Applicability of Full Bench judgment in Laxmi Narain Anand Prakash v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1980] 46 STC 71; [1980] UPTC 125 on the case.Issue 1: Validity of service of notice through affixationThe revisions involved a dispute regarding the validity of the service of notice under section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 through affixation. The Tribunal, in an earlier order, had a difference of opinion on whether service by affixation constitutes valid service. One member opined that affixation is not recognized as 'service' in the eyes of the law, while the other member considered it as valid service. The matter was referred to a third member of the Tribunal, who ultimately agreed that service by affixation is not a valid form of service. The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the firm in question had been dissolved, and notices should have been served to all four erstwhile partners, which was not done. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the Full Bench judgment of the court in Laxmi Narain Anand Prakash v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1980] 46 STC 71; [1980] UPTC 125, which emphasized the importance of serving notices to all concerned parties.Issue 2: Reopening of assessment orderThe dealer in this case was engaged in the business of purchasing and selling foodgrains, oil-seeds, etc. An original assessment order was passed in February 1990, which was later sought to be reopened due to alleged escaped turnover under section 21 of the Act. The notice under section 21 was served through affixation, and the reassessment order was passed ex parte. However, the first appellate authority allowed the dealer's appeal on the grounds that the notice was not validly served. This decision was challenged by the Department before the Tribunal, leading to the series of judgments and the final decision that service by affixation was not valid.Issue 3: Applicability of Full Bench judgmentThe Tribunal's decision in this case was in line with the Full Bench judgment of the court in Laxmi Narain Anand Prakash v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1980] 46 STC 71; [1980] UPTC 125. The Full Bench judgment emphasized the importance of serving notices to all relevant parties, especially in cases where a firm has been dissolved, and all erstwhile partners should be informed. The Tribunal's reliance on this judgment in determining the validity of service through affixation was upheld by the High Court, which found no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's decision. As a result, both revisions were dismissed, with no order as to costs.By analyzing the issues involved in the judgment, it is evident that the validity of service of notice through affixation, the reopening of the assessment order, and the applicability of the Full Bench judgment played crucial roles in determining the outcome of the case. The decision highlighted the importance of following legal procedures and ensuring proper notification to all concerned parties, especially in cases involving dissolved firms.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
