AJAIPAL Vs. ADDITIONAL REVISING AUTHORITY SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks the quashing of the orders dated 30th November, 1974, 10th March, 1975, and 1st May, 1976, passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Banda, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, Jhansi, and the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Allahabad, respectively. There is a further prayer for the issue of a writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from realising any amount as sales tax under the impugned assessment orders from the petitioners.

(2.) M/s. Jaipal Ajaipal, Hamirpur, carried on business in foodgrains and oilseeds. For the period from 1st April, 1969, to 30th September, 1969, the business under this name was carried on by one Jaipal and Ajaipal, petitioner No. 1. With effect from 1st October, 1969, the business was carried on by a new firm constituted of Jaipal and three others. Ajaipal, petitioner No. 1, is a minor and Sukhnandan, petitioner No. 2, is his father and guardian. For the aforesaid assessment year 1969-70 two assessments were made under the U. P. Sales Tax Act for the aforesaid two periods. Subsequently those assesments were reopened under Section 21 of the Act and the reassessment orders were passed for the two periods separately on 30th November, 1974. Aggrieved, the assessee filed two appeals against those assessment orders on 10th February, 1976. Since those appeals were filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, it was claimed that it was only on 3rd February, 1975, when the recovery was pressed against the petitioners for realisation of the entire amount payable in respect of both the periods that the petitioners came to know of those assessment orders and after obtaining certified copies of the same filed the appeals. This contention did not find favour with the appellate authority and the reason given was that Jaipal who was a partner in the firm in both the periods concerned was served with demand notices and copies of the assessment orders on 19th December, 1974. That service was treated as sufficient service on the firm. The appeals were hence dismissed in limine as barred by time.

(3.) Aggrieved, the matter was taken up by way of two revisions before the Additional Judge (Revisions), Allahabad. The learned Additional Judge (Revisions) concurred with the view taken by the appellate authority and dismissed the revisions.