TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (7) TMI 375
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioners within a period of four years from the date of assessment order in question and thus the said notice was liable to be quashed. It is not disputed that the said notice was served on the counsel for the petitioners who appeared in the original assessment proceedings. 2. According to the petitioners, the Sales Tax Officer, Jhansi, issued the said notice dated 23-8-1978 fixing 8-9-1978 for the proceedings under Section 21 of the said Act and thereafter another notice was again issued by the said officer on 12-10-1978 fixing the date as 10-11-1978. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners ha; urged the second ground, first by contending that the service of the notice under Section 21 on the lawyer of the petitioners is not effectual service of the notice on the petitioners, therefore, initiation of said proceedings is illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass Munni Lal and another v. State of U. P. and another, 1990 UPTC 1175. In the said case the Division Bench has relied on an earlier decision of this Court in the case o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of M/s. Jhansi Sahkari Kraya Vikraya Samiti, Subhasganj v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P., Lucknow, 1978 UPTC 199, in paragraph 3 of the judgment a Division Bench of this Court has held as quoted hereunder : "3. Rule 77-A deals with acts which may be required to be done either by a dealer or by his agent. It specified the kinds of acts as well as the conditions under which certain persons can act as the dealer's agent or representative. In the next place, Rule 77-A goes into prescribe the condition under which alone service of notice or process on a person other than the dealer would be as effectual as if the same had been served on the dealer in person ; namely that the person must be a lawyer, an accountant or an authorised agent 'appointed by the dealer in writing in this behalf. Thus, person answering the category of lawyers, accounts or authorised agents appointed by the dealer in writing in this behalf alone are competent to accept notice on behalf of the dealer. Service or acceptance of notice by my other class of persons would not be as effectual as if the same had been served on the dealer in person." Thus a lawyer appointed in writing by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to between the petitioner/assessee and the said Advocate the acts performed by the Advocate shall be binding on the assessee and the service of notice under Section 21 of the Act on the said Advocate was thus legal and valid. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners then urged that even if the said Advocate was authorised in writing that authority cannot extend to the notice under Section 21 of the said Act. The argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the said Vakalatnama was filed in the original assessment proceedings and not in the proceedings under Section 21 of the said Act. Having perused the said Vakalatnama, we find that the said Vakalatnama authorises Sri Umesh Chandra Gupta, Advocate to receive notice and also to file replies thereto, to appear on various dates, to file writ and to make stay application in the said writ, to receive the replies thereof on behalf of the dealer, to make application for registration and to appear in various courts and also before the various authorities on behalf of the dealer. It is significant to note that the said Vakalatnama also receites 'UPYUKTA MAMLE KI PRARAMBH SE ANTIM TAK KI KARYAWAHI KE LIYE..." Thu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sense even it can be argued that initiation of proceeding under Sections 21 and 22 of the said Act are commencement of proceedings after conclusion of assessment proceeding, but, in fact, it is on the other hand reopening the assessment order already passed by reassessing the dealer on account of escaped assessment or under-assessment etc. or passing an order rectifying the mistake which has crept in the original assessment order. Thus by reading the aforesaid provisions we are clearly of the opinion and accordingly held that the proceedings for the assessment year in question includes and empowers the assessing authority to correct its own error committed earlier. 11. It is also significant in this context to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Kundan Lal Sri Kishan Mathur (U. P.) v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. and another, 1987 UPTC 404, whereunder the Supreme Court has held as hereunder : "....The effect of reopening the assessment is to vacate or set aside the initial order for assessment and to substitute in its place the order made on reassessment cannot be said to survive, even partially, although the justification for reassessment ar....