Jurisdictional notice under escaped assessment law must be validly served; dealer participation cannot cure defective service.

Service of notice under Section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act was treated as a jurisdictional requirement for initiating escaped assessment proceedings. The authority could act only where notice was issued and validly served within the statutory framework; mere knowledge of the proceedings or appearance by the dealer did not cure defective service. The principle that jurisdiction cannot arise by consent, acquiescence, waiver, or estoppel was applied, and equitable doctrines were held inapplicable where the statute withheld jurisdiction absent proper notice. Improper service therefore rendered the initiation without jurisdiction, and the dealer's participation did not validate the proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of notice under Section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act was a condition precedent to valid initiation of escaped assessment proceedings, and whether the dealer's participation could cure improper service or confer jurisdiction.

Analysis: Notice under Section 21 was held to be jurisdictional and not a mere procedural formality. The authority could proceed only if notice was issued and validly served on the dealer within the statutory framework. Mere knowledge of the proceedings or appearance by the assessee did not substitute for valid service. The principle that jurisdiction cannot be created by consent, acquiescence, waiver, or estoppel was applied, and equitable doctrines were held inapplicable where the statute itself withheld jurisdiction in the absence of proper notice.

Conclusion: Improper service of notice under Section 21 rendered the initiation of proceedings without jurisdiction, and the defect was not cured by the assessee's participation. The question of law was answered in favour of the assessee.

---