Valid service of notice is a jurisdictional precondition for MVAT review proceedings; participation cannot cure defective service.

Valid service of notice under Rule 87(1) is a jurisdictional prerequisite for review proceedings under Section 25 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. The court held that substituted service must be resorted to only after the prescribed satisfaction that ordinary service has failed, and the record did not establish that requirement. Mere participation by the dealer in the review proceedings did not cure the defect or amount to waiver. The review order cancelling registration from inception was therefore invalid for want of proper notice, and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review order cancelling the dealer's registration from inception was jurisdiction for want of valid service of notice under the MVAT Rules, and whether participation in the review proceedings cured the defect.

Analysis: Review powers under Section 25 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 can be exercised only after valid service of notice in the manner prescribed by Rule 87(1) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. Service of notice is the foundation of jurisdiction and a condition precedent to valid review proceedings. The earlier round had kept the issue of service open, and the record did not show that substituted service was resorted to only after the requisite satisfaction that ordinary service had failed. Mere participation by the dealer could not validate proceedings that were initiated without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The review proceedings were invalid for want of proper service of notice, and the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Valid service of notice is a jurisdictional precondition for review or reassessment-type proceedings, and participation in such proceedings does not amount to waiver or cure a defect in service.

---