Mandatory amendment procedure for recognition certificates failed when effective date and communication requirements were not met, defeating assessment proceedings.

Rule 25-A(10) made it mandatory for an amendment order to specify the date from which it takes effect and to be communicated to the assessee. Because those statutory requirements were not complied with, the amendment of the recognition certificate did not operate in law against the assessee, even though a representative was present when it was made. The assessee was therefore entitled to contend in assessment proceedings that the certificate had not been validly amended, and proceedings under Section 4-B could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment of the recognition certificate complied with Rule 25-A(10) of the Sales Tax Rules and, if not, whether proceedings under Section 4-B of the Sales Tax Act could be sustained against the assessee.

Analysis: The requirement in Rule 25-A(10) that the order of amendment must specify the date from which it takes effect was held to be mandatory. The further requirement that the amendment order be communicated to the assessee was treated as necessary for the order to bind the assessee and for limitation to run for any appeal. Even though the assessee's representative was present when the amendment was made, non-compliance with the statutory mode of amendment meant that the order did not become operative in law against the assessee. In those circumstances, the assessee was entitled to contend in assessment proceedings that the recognition certificate had not stood amended.

Conclusion: The amendment order was invalid for non-compliance with Rule 25-A(10) and the proceedings under Section 4-B were not justified. The finding was in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory rule makes specification of the effective date and communication of the amendment order mandatory, failure to comply with that requirement prevents the amendment from operating against the assessee.

---