Valid service of tax notice on company employee upheld, while conditional appellate filing was permitted on partial tax deposit.

Service of an assessment notice on an employee of a private limited company was treated as valid under the statutory scheme, because notice may be served on the dealer or on persons connected with the dealer's business. The company could not avoid assessment on the ground that the notice was not personally tendered to its signatory, as that would make the prescribed mode of service unworkable for companies. Although the service challenge failed, the court permitted a conditional appellate remedy by allowing appeals to be filed on payment of 50% of the disputed tax, with the appellate authority to decide the matters on merits and limitation kept out of consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service of the assessment notice on an employee of the petitioner-company was invalid so as to vitiate the assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006; (ii) whether the petitioner-company was entitled to an opportunity to pursue an appeal upon deposit of a portion of the disputed tax.

Issue (i): Whether service of the assessment notice on an employee of the petitioner-company was invalid so as to vitiate the assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006.

Analysis: The notice was served on an employee of a private limited company. The statutory scheme permits service on the dealer or on persons connected with the dealer's business, and the Court found that the company could not disown service merely because the notice was not tendered personally to its signatory. Accepting such a contention would make the statutory mode of service unworkable in the case of companies.

Conclusion: The challenge to service of notice failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner-company was entitled to an opportunity to pursue an appeal upon deposit of a portion of the disputed tax.

Analysis: Though the writ petitions were not accepted on the merits of service, the Court granted a remedial opportunity by permitting the petitioner to file appeals on payment of 50% of the disputed tax within the time fixed. The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeals on merits and the question of limitation was kept out of consideration.

Conclusion: The petitioner-company was granted conditional liberty to file appeals on deposit of 50% of the disputed tax.

Final Conclusion: The assessment challenge was rejected on the service issue, but a limited appellate remedy was preserved on payment of part of the disputed tax, leaving the merits open before the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Service of a statutory notice on an employee or other authorized person connected with a company can constitute valid service under the tax law, and such service cannot be disowned merely for want of personal tender to the company itself.

---