COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. SUBHASH AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The controversy involved in the present case lies with a very narrow compass and, therefore, a brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.

(3.) Respondent-Subhash Kimtee (hereinafter referred to as "assessee") was the proprietor of a concern known as M/s. Subhash and Company. He was registered as a dealer under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") w.e.f. 28-5-1973. The registration continued to be operative till 22-10-1987. The assessment periods to which the dispute relates are (a) 27-10-1981 to 15-11-1982, (b) 16-11-1982 to 4-11-1983, and (c) 5-11-1983 to 24-10-1984. The assessments were originally completed for the assessment years 1981-82. 1982-83 and 1983-84 vide orders dated 12-9-1984, 29-8-1985 and 29-8-1985 respectively. Respondent applied cancellation of the certificate of registration on 14-12-1987 and the same was cancelled w.e.f. 23-10-1987. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for re-assessment under S.19(1) of the Act on the basis of information that the respondent had purchased iron and steel from M/s. Steel Terro. Indore and had enjoined certain benefits by issuing declaration forms in Form XII-J. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the benefits were not permissible in law and, therefore, there was short levy of tax and escapement of assessment. Accordingly, notices were issued for re-assessment in respect of the three years. The notices were issued on the address as indicated in the certificate of registration. It was indicated in the notices that the same may be pasted if the respondent-assessee was not available or he refused to accept the notice. Since it was learnt that the respondent-assessee was not residing at the address given, service by affixture was resorted to. Vide orders dated 13-12-1990, 13-12-1990 and 31-12-1990, re-assessments were done under S. 19(1) of the Act. On 23-4-1992, respondent-assessee challenged the orders of re-assessment by filing revision-petition before the revisional authority at Indore under S. 39(1)(b) of the Act on the ground that the notices and the orders of re-assessment as well as the original assessment orders were not served on him, rendering the re-assessment proceedings illegal. The revisional authority vide 3 separate but common order dated 23-4-1993 dismissed the revision-petition recording a finding that service in both the original assessments as well as re-assessment proceedings had been duly effected by affixture and the orders were valid.