Service of notice and hearing rights govern ex parte tax assessments; defective notice can invalidate appellate and recovery steps.

Proper service of notice is essential where the assessment statutes require a reasonable opportunity of hearing before ex parte assessment. If the postal cover is returned unserved and service is not otherwise established, the presumption of service cannot be drawn, so the assessment orders cannot stand. Appellate orders founded on the same defective service are equally unsustainable, and consequential recovery proceedings must fall with the invalid assessments. The text also notes that the revisional applications were not entertainable before the Additional Commissioner, who lacked jurisdiction and should have returned them to the competent forum, but limitation had already expired, making remand futile.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment proceedings and ex parte assessment orders were valid in the absence of service of notice and denial of opportunity of hearing; (ii) Whether the appellate and recovery proceedings based on such assessments were sustainable and whether the revisional applications were entertainable.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment proceedings and ex parte assessment orders were valid in the absence of service of notice and denial of opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: Under the relevant service provisions, notice may be served personally, by messenger, or by registered post, and a presumption of receipt arises only in the manner contemplated by the rules. Where the postal cover is returned unserved, the statutory presumption of service cannot be drawn. The assessment provisions under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 require that the dealer be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before assessment. Since service of notice was not established, the ex parte assessments could not stand; at the same time, the Tribunal distinguished the case law on service under the Income-tax Act, 1922 and held that absence of service in the present statutory setting did not by itself finally negate initiation beyond the issue of proof and limitation.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were invalid for want of proper service of notice and were liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate and recovery proceedings based on such assessments were sustainable and whether the revisional applications were entertainable.

Analysis: The appellate authority also failed to ensure proper service of notices of appeal, so the appellate orders could not be sustained. The recovery proceedings, being consequential to the invalid assessments, also had to fall. As to revision, the Additional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applications and ought to have returned them to the competent Tribunal. However, the assessment periods were already time-barred by the time the appeals were filed, so no useful purpose would be served by remand or by enlarging the time spent in the proceedings.

Conclusion: The appellate and recovery proceedings were unsustainable, and the revisional applications were not entertainable before the Additional Commissioner.

Final Conclusion: The applications succeeded in full: the assessments, appellate orders, and consequential recovery proceedings were set aside, and no further adjudication was warranted because the assessments had become barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service of notice required for assessment is not established and the statute mandates a reasonable opportunity of hearing, ex parte assessment orders cannot be sustained; consequential appellate and recovery proceedings founded on such assessments also fail, especially when the matter is time-barred.

---