Valid service on authorised advocate and continuation of transferred reassessment proceedings upheld under sales tax rules.

Service of a Section 21 U. P. Sales Tax notice on a dealer's advocate was treated as valid where the vakalatnama and surrounding authority showed express authorisation to receive notices and file replies, so notice to the advocate amounted to notice to the dealer. Proceedings transferred under Rule 81(2) could also be continued by the transferee Sales Tax Officer, because the receiving authority became competent to complete the reassessment after transfer. On the facts found, neither objection established any illegality in the reassessment proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether service of notice under Section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act on the dealer's advocate, in the circumstances of the case, was valid service on the dealer; (ii) whether the proceedings under Section 21, after transfer under the Rules, could validly be continued by the Sales Tax Officer, Jhansi.

Issue (i): whether service of notice under Section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act on the dealer's advocate, in the circumstances of the case, was valid service on the dealer.

Analysis: The notice related to an assessment year prior to the retrospective amendment of Rule 77-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules. The authority produced in the proceedings showed that the advocate had been specifically engaged to receive notices and file replies on the dealer's behalf. On the wording of the vakalatnama and the scope of the representation, the notice served on the advocate was treated as service on the dealer. The earlier rule position did not assist the petitioner because, on the facts found, the advocate was expressly authorised to receive the notice.

Conclusion: Service of notice on the advocate was valid and the challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): whether the proceedings under Section 21, after transfer under the Rules, could validly be continued by the Sales Tax Officer, Jhansi.

Analysis: The proceedings were initially commenced by the proper assessing authority and were thereafter transferred under Rule 81(2) of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules. Once transferred, the receiving authority was competent to complete the proceedings. The argument that only the original assessing officer could continue the matter was rejected on the facts found and on the effect of transfer of proceedings.

Conclusion: The proceedings as continued by the Sales Tax Officer, Jhansi were within jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was unsuccessful because neither the objection to service of notice nor the objection to jurisdiction after transfer established any illegality in the reassessment proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dealer has expressly authorised an advocate to receive notices on his behalf, service on that advocate constitutes valid service on the dealer for proceedings under Section 21, and proceedings validly transferred under the Rules may be continued by the transferee authority.

---