TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1975 (11) TMI 147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....giving rise to this question are as follows: By an order dated 12th September, 1964, the assessees were assessed ex parte by the Sales Tax Officer, B Ward, Unit III, Bombay, for the period from 1st April, 1962, to 31st March, 1963, under the said Act. The assessees filed an appeal against this order before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. It was contended by the assessees in the appeal that the notice for assessment was not properly served on the proprietor of the assessees. This contention was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal of the assessees. The assessees then preferred a second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, which met with the same fate. Before the Tribunal it was contended by the assessees....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clusion that the notice in question in the present case was served on the agent of the proprietor of the assessees and that the assessees would not have accepted the assessment order passed in respect of the said earlier period without making a grievance about the service of the notice, which was served on the same person, had that notice not been properly served. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was sufficient material on the record to conclude that the person on whom the notice in the present case was served was the duly authorised agent of the assessees. Since the argument, to some extent, turns on the provisions of rule 68 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, it may be useful to take note of the relevant part thereof. R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the very same person in respect of the previous assessment period as well as the conduct of the assessees in preferring an appeal against another assessment order arising out of a notice served on the very same person, without making any grievance about the service of the notice, constituted sufficient material on which an inference could be drawn that the person on whom that notice was served had been duly authorised to receive notices addressed to the assessees. It was submitted by Mr. Jetly that these circumstances were irrelevant in considering the question whether the person receiving the notice had been duly authorised by the assessees to receive the same. In support of this contention, Mr. Jetly relied on the decision of the Allahaba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed date. The accused (assessee) contended that he had not been duly served with copies of the notices in respect of the final and provisional assessments in question in accordance with the provisions of rule 28 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939. It was found that the notices were served on one Maranna, a clerk of the accused. It was, inter alia, urged by the Advocate-General on behalf of the Public Prosecutor that as the assessee had appealed from the order of assessment based on the notice in question it should be inferred that the assessee had accepted the service as sufficient and this contention was rejected by the Mysore High Court. This case again, in our view, is distinguishable from the case before us, because in that case....