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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a reassessment notice issued under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act to the old, non-existent firm instead of the reconstituted firm was valid and could confer jurisdiction on the Sales Tax Officer.
Analysis: The reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of a notice addressed to the old firm name, although the dealer had been reconstituted and fresh registration had been obtained in the new firm name. The defect was not a mere irregularity in description. Service of a valid notice was a condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment, and a notice addressed to an entity that had ceased to exist could not be treated as valid. The fact that some earlier communications had been received without objection did not cure the defect, because jurisdiction could not arise from waiver or estoppel where the statute required a valid notice before action could be taken.
Conclusion: The notice was invalid and the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and void; the revision succeeded in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where reassessment jurisdiction depends on service of a valid statutory notice, a notice issued to a non-existent person or entity is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured by waiver, acquiescence, or prior conduct.