Court quashes assessment orders, directs refund, emphasizes notice service.

The court quashed the ex-parte assessment orders, garnishee notices, and rejection of the recall application. It directed the registering authority to process the application for changing the principal place of business and ordered the refund of the withdrawn amount with interest. Additionally, the court imposed costs on the Commercial Tax Department and emphasized the importance of proper notice service and adherence to procedural rules.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for change of principal place of business.
2. Ex-parte assessment orders and service of notices.
3. Attachment and withdrawal of funds from the petitioner's bank account.
4. Rejection of recall application for ex-parte assessment orders.
5. Jurisdiction of the assessing authority.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Change of Principal Place of Business:
The petitioner, a company engaged in trading goods, applied for a change of its principal place of business from Noida to Ghaziabad on 05.12.2013. The application was rejected on 02.09.2014 due to the delay in filing and lack of details about the closure of the Noida business. The petitioner argued that no opportunity for a hearing was provided, making the order violative of Section 75 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act (Vat Act) and Rule 33 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules. The court found that Rule 6(8) requiring previous written permission from the Commissioner for changing the principal place of business was not applicable in this case. The application should have been processed under Section 75 and Rule 33. The court held that the rejection based on delay and non-payment of a filing fee was erroneous and directed the registering authority to process the application.

2. Ex-parte Assessment Orders and Service of Notices:
The petitioner contended that ex-parte assessment orders for the years 2011-12, 2013-14, and 2014-15 were passed without proper notice, as the notices were sent to the old Noida address despite the petitioner having shifted to Ghaziabad. The court found that the service of notices was not conducted as per Rule 72 of the Rules, which requires personal service or service on an agent. The affixation of notices at the Noida address was deemed invalid since the respondents were aware of the change in the petitioner's business address. The court quashed the ex-parte assessment orders due to improper service of summons.

3. Attachment and Withdrawal of Funds from the Petitioner's Bank Account:
Following the ex-parte assessment orders, the petitioner's bank accounts were seized, and Rs. 49.82 crores were withdrawn. The court found this action illegal and without authority, as the assessment orders were quashed. The court directed the respondents to refund the amount along with interest as per Section 40 of the Vat Act, after adjusting the admitted tax.

4. Rejection of Recall Application for Ex-parte Assessment Orders:
The petitioner's recall application was rejected on the grounds of being filed beyond the stipulated period and non-deposit of the admitted tax. The court held that the rejection was erroneous as the limitation period could not start from the date of affixation at the Noida address due to improper service. Additionally, since the amount of Rs. 49.82 crores had already been realized, the petitioner could not be required to deposit any further amount. The court quashed the order rejecting the recall application.

5. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority:
The petitioner argued that the assessing authority at Noida had no jurisdiction to serve notices or make assessments for the Ghaziabad address. The court noted that the assessing authority could not serve summons outside its territorial jurisdiction without following the procedure under Rule 72(j) and (k). The court did not delve deeply into this issue but allowed the petitioner to raise it before the appropriate forum if fresh notices were issued.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the ex-parte assessment orders, the garnishee notices, and the rejection of the recall application. It directed the registering authority to process the application for change of place of business and ordered the refund of the withdrawn amount with interest. The court also imposed costs of Rs. 2,00,000 on the Commercial Tax Department for the petitioner. The judgment emphasized the need for proper service of notices and adherence to procedural rules, criticizing the respondents' conduct in handling the assessment and recovery process.

---