TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1964 (8) TMI 50
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is alleged that the business was carried on only till 5th April, 1961. The enquiries made by the Sales Tax Officer also confirmed that the business was closed since a long time. The relevant years of assessment are 1958-59 and 1959-60. The assessments were made on the 23rd of March, 1963, and 28th of November, 1963, respectively. There is no explanation as to why the assessments were not made promptly but were delayed. Be that as it may, the petitioner claims that he had no knowledge of these assessments, which were made ex parte and without notice to him. The first intimation that the petitioner had of any proceedings having been taken against him was on the 29th of March, 1964, when a Kurk Amin from the sales tax collection staff had com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e shows that the dealer refused to accept the notice and hence it was affixed at the last known place of the assessee. On due date none appeared and hence the case was reserved for ex parte order. "The dealer did not file any information regarding the closure of the business and hence it was considered fit to decide the case after spot enquiry. I, therefore, made enquiries in the market on 21st March, 1963. The shop of the dealer was found locked and it was reported by the neighboring dealers that it has been closed since long. It was further reported that Sri Ram Babu Sharma, proprietor of the firm is now in the service of M/s. Khub Chand Sampat Ram, a firm dealing in iron and steel goods. Enquiries were, therefore, made at the firm where ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is mentioned as to when the Sales Tax Officer had asked the petitioner to appear before him. Such a statement would also be in the teeth of the facts stated in the assessment order which makes no mention of the petitioner having been personally asked by the Sales Tax Officer at any time or, when he found him working as an employee of M/s. Khub Chand Sampat Ram, to appear before him. There is little or no excuse for the department not to be precise and definite in the statements that are made in the counter-affidavit as the relevant records are with them. Such vagueness in the statement of fact cannot possibly redound to the credit of the department nor help to advance its case. In the present case, when the petitioner had sworn upon persona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad revealed that the petitioner was not running any business since a long time and he had actually contacted him at the premises where the petitioner was employed and yet he was prepared to swallow the report of the process-server hook, line and sinker, and took no steps to personally serve the petitioner before proceeding to make an ex parte assessment on 23rd March, 1963. Having once come to know the true position regarding the petitioner it became his duty to give an opportunity to the assessee, in the interest of justice, to show cause why an ex parte assessment should not be made against him. There is, as already observed, no mention in the assessment order that he told the petitioner, when he met on the 21st March, 1963, that he propo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esorted to as the last mode of service and not as was done in the present case as the very first mode. There is no evidence or material on the record to show that any of the modes of service provided in rule 77(a), (b) and (c) were first resorted to before proceeding to affix a copy thereof at the last known place of business of the petitioner. Furthermore, there should be some material on the record to show that none of the other three modes of service were practicable or feasible before resort is had to service by affixation. Service of notices is a serious matter and cannot be dealt with light-heartedly as would appear to have been in the present ease. The process-server's report, which is not supported by any affidavit from him, at leas....