2013 (1) TMI 701

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oresaid two assessment years, both were dismissed by separate orders filed as annexure P5 in both the petitions, both the petitions are being decided by this common order as the factual position in both the cases are identical. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P. No. 1322 of 2008. The sole contention of the petitioner before this court is that for the date of hearing, i.e., September 12, 2005, no notice was served to the petitioner though the order reveals that notice was served by affixture. The petitioner had moved an application, annexure P6, before the respondents for hearing of the revision but it was not decided. It is submitted that the procedure as provided under rule 86 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Rules, 1995....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....:- (i) by delivering or tendering to the addressee or his agent by hand of a copy of the notice or summons or order, or (ii) by post: Provided that if upon an attempt having been made to serve any such notice or summon or order by any of the abovementioned methods, the authority issuing it is satisfied that the addressee is evading the notice or summons or order or that for any other reason, the notice or summons or order cannot be served by any of the above-mentioned methods, the said authority shall cause such notice or summons or order to be served by affixing a copy thereof- (a) if the addressee is a dealer, on some conspicuous part of the dealer's office or the building in which the dealer's office is located or upo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order, annexure P5 and to direct revisional authority to hear and decide the matter afresh. In so far as filing of the forms C and E1 before the revisional authority is concerned, this question has been decided by the Division Bench of this court in Aar Kay Agro Spring Industries v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2013] 62 VST 197 (MP); [2011] 19 STJ 566, in which the Division Bench following the law laid down by the apex court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. State of M.P. [1985] 60 STC 301 (SC); [2004] 3 STJ 493 (SC) held that the assessee can be given opportunity to collect declaration forms and furnish them to the assessing authority if the challenge of the assessee to taxability of a particular transaction is turned down. The revisi....