TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 1102
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment year pertains to 1995-96. The assessment was under the Central Sales Tax Act. The writ petitioner claimed exemption under section 6A of the Act for its stock transfer effected, based on form F produced by it. The assessment was concluded by order dated June 30, 1999. Subsequently, there was an inspection made by the officers of the first respondent and based on the accounts and records recovered from the petitioner, notice was duly served on the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgment due on March 31, 2000. The petitioner failed to file any objections to the proposal to assess the turnover in a sum of Rs. 1,88,95,000. Apart from that, a penalty was proposed at Rs. 5,09,850 under the Act. The notice was received by one Thiru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his manager or agent or a legal practitioner appointed to represent him or assessee's authorized representative. While other modes of service by serving it on any adult member of the family or by registered post or by fixing it in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence. According to the learned counsel, such options can be resorted to only if the service could not be effected by tendering it on the assessee in person. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that since in the case on hand, the only mode resorted to was by sending notice by RPAD, though the said notice was stated to have been duly served in the office of the petitioner, the failure on the part of the respondents to have attempted to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o our notice the decision of the Division Bench in Quantas Engineers & Promoters (P) Limited v. Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal [2003] 131 STC 529 (Mad), wherein the Division Bench deprecated the claim for invocation of writ jurisdiction to get over the bar of limitation. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused section 31 of the TNGST Act and and rule 52(1) of the Rules made thereunder, we are not inclined to accede to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that only after resorting to the service of notice in person, service through registered post was permissible. A reading of rule 52(1), makes it clear that the set of expressions in the first part of rule 52(1), viz., "may....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he petitioner's place of business under rule 52(d). . .". Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the mode of service resorted to by the respondents, viz., by registered post with acknowledgment due to serve the order of the revised assessment on the petitioner was perfectly justified. Insofar as the stand of the petitioner that even such service by registered post with acknowledgment due was not properly made, the same was extensively considered both by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the second respondent Tribunal and they found that there was no substance in the said stand of the petitioner. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while the notice for revision was issued unde....