KISHORI LAL AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner carries on business as a dealer in iron and steel. He was assessed originally on 15th June, 1964, for the assessment year 1960-61 under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. Subsequently, the Sales Tax Officer, Sector III, Kanpur, commenced proceedings against him under section 21 for that assessment year. The petitioner claims that he did not receive any notice under section 21, and it was only when a notice dated 14th April, 1965, was served upon him three days later informing him that a date had been fixed for hearing of the case that he came to know that proceedings under that provision had been initiated. The petitioner wrote to the Sales Tax Officer pointing out that no notice under section 21 had been served upon him and the period of limitation of four years from the end of 1960-61 having run out, the proceedings were without jurisdiction. Aggrieved by these proceedings, the petitioner now claims certiorari against them and prohibition restraining the respondents from continuing those proceedings. Another relief sought by the petitioner is that the third respondent, the Sales Tax Officer (Special Investigation Branch), Kanpur, be directed to return the documents and papers which had been seized from the custody of the petitioner.

(2.) IT appears that the Sales Tax Officer issued a notice dated 29th March, 1965, under section 21 to the petitioner, but that notice was not served upon the petitioner. According to the report of the process server, one Mahabir Singh, he went to the business premises of the petitioner in order to serve the notice and found a person sitting there, who refused to take the notice. He left the notice on the premises and returned. It is not disputed that the petitioner was not on the business premises at that time. On 31st March, 1965, the Sales Tax Officer despatched a telegram to the petitioner in which it was stated :

(3.) NOW , there is nothing in the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents to show that the dealer could not easily be found. Merely because the peon went to the business premises and did not a find the dealer present does not mean that the dealer could not easily be found. It does not appear that any attempt was made thereafter by the peon to find out where the petitioner was to be found. The use of the expression "cannot easily be found" seems to suggest a certain difficulty in finding the dealer. A dealer may not be present at his business premises at a certain point of time, and yet if the business premises are visited again he may be present. What is contemplated by clause (b) is a case where the dealer cannot be found despite reasonable effort in that behalf. It seems to me that clause (b) does not cover the service attempted when the peon left the notice at the business premises.