Valid service of notice and amendment of registration under VAT law govern ex parte assessments and coercive recovery.

Change of principal place of business under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act had to be reflected by amendment of the registration certificate from the date of the event, and delay in intimation or a curable fee defect did not justify rejection. Ex parte assessment and garnishee recovery could not stand where notice was not validly served in the prescribed manner; service at an old address, when the authority knew of the shift, was ineffective. A recall application under section 32 could not be rejected on limitation or non-deposit grounds when the assessment order itself was not validly served and the admitted tax had already been recovered coercively. The impugned orders were annulled and fresh action was left open only after valid service and hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the rejection of the application for change of principal place of business under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act was lawful; (ii) whether the ex parte assessment orders and consequential garnishee recovery were sustainable in the absence of valid service of notice; (iii) whether rejection of the recall application under section 32 was justified on limitation and non-deposit grounds.

Issue (i): whether the rejection of the application for change of principal place of business under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act was lawful.

Analysis: The scheme of section 17(14) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 requires amendment of the registration certificate when there is a change in the place of business, and such amendment operates from the date of the event. Section 75 and Rule 33 require intimation in the prescribed form, but the delay in furnishing the intimation does not, by itself, authorise rejection where the statutory obligation is to amend the certificate. Rule 6 dealt with declaration of principal place of business for jurisdictional purposes and was held inapplicable to the petitioner's case. The defect relating to filing fee was also curable.

Conclusion: The rejection of the application for change of place of business was unlawful and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the ex parte assessment orders and consequential garnishee recovery were sustainable in the absence of valid service of notice.

Analysis: Rule 72 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules prescribes the modes of service and requires personal service where practicable, service on an authorised agent where applicable, and substituted service only in the manner recognised by the Rule. The service attempts at the old Noida address were ineffective because the authority knew that the petitioner had shifted to Ghaziabad. Service by affixation at the old address was not valid, service at Ghaziabad was outside the territorial reach of the issuing authority and was not routed through the competent authority as required, and service by registered post was not shown to have been followed or dispensed with. In these circumstances, the ex parte assessment orders could not stand, and the recovery made by attachment of bank account on the basis of those orders was without authority of law.

Conclusion: The ex parte assessment orders and the garnishee recovery proceedings were quashed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether rejection of the recall application under section 32 was justified on limitation and non-deposit grounds.

Analysis: Section 32 contemplates an application to set aside an ex parte assessment order within thirty days of service of the order and requires proof of payment of the admitted tax. Since the assessment order itself had not been validly served, limitation could not run from the defective affixation at the old address. Further, the revenue had already realised an amount exceeding the admitted tax through coercive recovery, so the recall application could not be rejected for want of further deposit. The rejection order therefore proceeded on an erroneous foundation.

Conclusion: The order rejecting the recall application was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the impugned assessment, recovery, recall, and registration orders were annulled, refund with interest and costs was directed, and fresh assessment was left open only in accordance with law after valid service and hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: When the statute requires amendment of registration upon a change of business premises and the revenue fails to effect valid service of assessment notices in the prescribed manner, ex parte assessment and coercive recovery based on such defective service cannot be sustained.

---