Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the VAT N-2 notice initiating scrutiny assessment was validly served in terms of Rule 79 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Rules, 2003 and whether any substantial question of law arose from the challenge to such service.
Analysis: The challenge centred on the alleged non-service of the statutory notice required for scrutiny assessment. The record showed that the accountant of the assessee had appeared before the assessing authority on several dates during the assessment proceedings and had stated that the notice had been served through the gatekeeper of the company premises. The subsequent affidavit retracting that statement was disbelieved, particularly because it was made on the very day the Tribunal decided the matter. The gatekeeper was treated as a person regularly employed in connection with the business, bringing the service within the scope of Rule 79. The facts were distinguished from the cited precedent where service had been effected on a friend of the assessee.
Conclusion: The VAT N-2 notice was held to have been validly served, and the assessee failed to establish any infirmity in the assessment proceedings or any substantial question of law. The challenge was rejected and the appeals were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Service of a statutory notice on a gatekeeper at the business premises, when shown to be a person regularly employed in connection with the business, constitutes valid service under Rule 79 of the Haryana Value Added Tax Rules, 2003.