Court sets aside order, directs rehearing due to improper notice. Petitioner allowed to submit forms for reconsideration.

The court set aside the previous order and directed the revisional authority to rehear the case due to the failure to serve notice properly for the hearing. The petitioner was allowed to submit forms C and E1 before the revisional authority for reconsideration in accordance with established law. Specific directions were issued for a fresh consideration, scheduling a hearing date, and urging a prompt decision by the revisional authority, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to imposition of Central sales tax for specific assessment years; Failure to serve notice to the petitioner for hearing; Non-production of forms C and E1 before the assessing officer; Legal procedure for service of notice under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Rules, 1995; Applicability of settled law regarding filing of forms C and E1 before the revisional authority.

Analysis:

The judgment addresses two writ petitions filed by the same party challenging the imposition of Central sales tax for two consecutive assessment years. The petitioner contended that no notice was served for the hearing date, and the procedure for notice service as per Rule 86 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Rules, 1995 was not followed. The petitioner also sought permission to produce forms C and E1 before the revisional authority for a lower tax assessment. The Government Advocate opposed, citing the petitioner's failure to appear before the revisional authority despite multiple notices.

The court examined Rule 86(1) of the Commercial Tax Rules, emphasizing that notice should be served by hand or post, with affixture allowed only if other methods fail. Notably, no service report by affixture was presented, indicating the petitioner's claim of non-service was plausible. Thus, the court set aside the previous order and directed the revisional authority to rehear the case.

Regarding the production of forms C and E1, the court referred to a Division Bench ruling allowing such filings post initial assessment rejection. Following this precedent, the petitioner was permitted to submit the forms before the revisional authority for consideration in accordance with the law.

The judgment concluded by issuing specific directions: setting aside the previous order, remitting the case for fresh consideration, scheduling a hearing date, allowing form submissions, and urging a timely decision by the revisional authority. No costs were awarded considering the case circumstances.

---