TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1964 (8) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i. The petitioner is carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of hand-made biris at Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. According to the petitioner he was appointing selling agents and one such selling agent appointed was Messrs Ghanshiam and Co. of Aligarh to whom biris were supplied. The assessment order dated 18th January, 1964, was made on Messrs Ghanshiam and Co., Aligarh. The counter-affidavit of the Assistant Sales Tax Officer (hereinafter referred to as the S.T.O.) was to the effect that Messrs Ghanshiam & Co. was only the branch and the head office was at Rewa. He also admitted that the statement of one Jumna Prasad, the manager of Ghanshiam & Co., was recorded by him as far back as 17th January, 1961, wherein the said manager had asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... months the Sales Tax Officer is said to have woken up to the fact that the affixation of the notice by the process-server on 8th December, 1962, was without his instructions and, therefore, ostensibly, for that reason issued a fresh notice on the 25th March, 1963. It was again affixed. The report made by the process-server on that date is even more significant and, according to him, it was some Sindhi who was occupying this shop but even he had left. The Sales Tax Officer, thereafter, issued two or three other notices, the last one being dated the 18th of January, 1964, and each one of these notices was issued in the name of Ghanshiam & Co., Aligarh, and served by affixation. In the counter-affidavit, the justification for serving notices ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erved upon him and the Sales Tax Officer cannot merely by the stroke of pen after the assessment has been made, add his name so as to extract the tax from him. The procedure adopted by the Sales Tax Officer, to say the least, is a curious one and is in complete disregard of the provisions of law. It was a sheer waste of time for the Sales Tax Officer to have gone on affixing notice after notice on a defunct business when it was within his knowledge that the proprietor of that business and the head office of that firm were at Rewa (M.P.). The least that was expected of him was to have made at least one effort to comply with the provisions of rule 77 which in clear terms, inter alia, required him to serve a notice by registered post and only ....