Jurisdictional notice under U.P. Trade Tax law cannot be cured by participation once limitation has expired.

Service of notice under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is treated as a condition precedent to jurisdiction, so an invalid or unserved notice renders reassessment proceedings void. Dealer participation does not cure the defect or create estoppel in tax matters. Where the limitation period under Section 21(2) has expired, the Tribunal cannot revive the matter by directing a fresh notice and remand for reassessment. The direction to issue a new notice was therefore unsustainable, and the position was resolved in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of notice under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was a condition precedent to jurisdiction, and whether, once such notice was held invalid and limitation under Section 21(2) had expired, the Tribunal could direct fresh notice and remand the matter for reassessment.

Analysis: The notice under Section 21 was treated as a jurisdictional requirement and not a mere procedural formality. Where service of that notice was not valid, the proceedings initiated under Section 21 were without jurisdiction and void. Mere participation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings did not validate the defect or operate as an estoppel in tax matters. Since the limitation period under Section 21(2) had already expired, the Tribunal could not revive the proceedings by directing issuance of a fresh notice.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee. The proceedings under Section 21 could not be continued or validated, and the direction to issue fresh notice was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Service of notice under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is a condition precedent to assumption of jurisdiction, and an invalid or unserved notice renders the proceedings void without being cured by the dealer's participation.

---