TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether service of the notice under section 21(1) was valid when the process server reported refusal to accept the notice and left copies at the premises in accordance with rule 77 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules. (ii) Whether the reassessment proceedings and assessment order could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction on the ground of absence of material and disputed facts.
Issue (i): Whether service of the notice under section 21(1) was valid when the process server reported refusal to accept the notice and left copies at the premises in accordance with rule 77 of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules.
Analysis: The notice was tendered to the dealer's authorised representative at the factory premises. The Court found no material to disbelieve the process server's report or to accept the plea that the representative was on leave. Rule 77(1)(a) permits service by tendering the notice to the dealer, his agent, or employee, and rule 77(3) treats refusal to accept the notice, supported by a verified report, as proof of service. On the facts, there was substantial compliance with the prescribed mode of service.
Conclusion: Service of notice was valid and the objection to jurisdiction on this ground failed, against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment proceedings and assessment order could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction on the ground of absence of material and disputed facts.
Analysis: The proceedings were initiated on the basis of information from the Sales Tax Officer and a survey in which incriminatory material was found. The Court held that it could not examine the sufficiency of that material in writ jurisdiction. Since the challenge also involved disputed questions of fact, the matter was more appropriately left to the statutory appellate and recall remedies under the Act.
Conclusion: No interference was warranted in writ jurisdiction and the challenge to the proceedings failed, against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The notice and assessment action were upheld, and the writ petition was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Refusal to accept a validly tendered notice, supported by a verified process-server report, amounts to sufficient service under the prescribed service rule, and disputed factual issues or adequacy of initiating material are not ordinarily examined in writ jurisdiction when statutory remedies are available.
TaxTMI 
