MANUSUKHLAL A SHAH Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two connected revision petitions preferred under section 13(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, hereinafter called "the Act". The petitions are directed against the common order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bangalore City, dated 27th September, 1973, in C. Misc. Nos. 46 and 47 of 1973, by which the learned Magistrate, in proceedings for recovery of arrears of sales tax under section 13(3)(b) of the Act, overruled the contention of the dealer, who is the petitioner in these revision petitions, on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to go into the question whether there was proper service of the notices of demand.

(2.) The matters arise in this way. The petitioner, one Manusukhlal A. Shah is a dealer assessed under the Act for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71. Two assessment orders were passed by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, IV Circle, Bangalore, on 5th September, 1972, and 27th September, 1972, respectively. The notices of demand were not served personally on the dealer, but were served by affixture on 28th October, 1972. The dealer did not pay the tax and, therefore, proceedings for recovery were instituted before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in C. Misc, Nos. 46 and 47 of 1973. The dealer, inter alia, contended that the notices of demand for the two assessment years were not served on him and, therefore, no tax was due, and consequently, the recovery proceedings were not maintainable. In the applications filed before the court below by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, it was stated that the demand notices were served on 28th October, 1972, by affixture on the door of the dealer's shop. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties overruled the petitioner's contention on the ground that it is beyond his jurisdiction to go into the question as to the sufficiency or legality of the service of the demand notices. Aggrieved by the said order, the dealer has preferred the above revision petitions.

(3.) Before us, Sri B. P. Gandhi, the learned counsel for the dealer, invited our attention to rule 20 of the Rules made under the Act, which provides that after making the final assessment, the assessing authority shall examine whether any, and if so, what amount is due from the dealer towards the tax and if any amount is found to be due from him towards the final assessment, the assessing authority shall serve upon the dealer a notice in form 6, and the dealer shall pay the sum demanded within the time and in the manner specified in the notice. He next invited our attention to rule 53 of the Rules which provides the mode of service of notice under the Act. In order to appreciate his contention, it is necessary to set out the said rule. It reads :