PRAMOD AND COMPANY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred by the assessee against the judgment dated 14th May, 1984, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Aligarh, dismissing its appeal. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of purchases and sale of cement, etc. It submitted its return for the year 1975-76 disclosing the gross and net turnovers of Rs. 9,97,947.32 and nil respectively. The Sales Tax, Officer, Sector-II, Hathras, after examining all the account books accepted the purchase of the cement made by the assessee within the State of U.P. from M/s. Faridabad Manufacturing Engineer Products Private Limited, Ghaziabad, and exempted from payment of tax. Subsequently the assessee is alleged to have received a notice dated 30th July, 1980, through which it was called upon to appear before the assessing authority on 8th August, 1980, in respect of certain proceedings for the assessment year in question. The assessee appeared before the Sales Tax Officer and contested the said notice under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground that the notice was invalid and beyond time and also on merit it was liable to be dismissed. The Sales Tax Officer assessed tax under Section 21 of the Act for the year in question. The assessee went up in first appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) who set aside the order of the assessing authority and remanded the case back to the Sales Tax Officer for deciding it again on merit inasmuch as according to him the facts were not properly appreciated by the assessing authority. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) the assessee preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal which dismissed the same. The assessee has come to this Court in the instant revision.

(2.) I have heard Sri R. K. Agarwal, counsel for the assessee, and the learned standing counsel appearing for the revenue. Counsel for the assessee firstly raised the point regarding the service of notice under Section 21 of the Act and contended that no valid notice under Section 21 of the Act was served upon the assessee and in the absence of a valid notice the proceedings were wholly void. He also contended that the notice dated 28 th March, 1980, which was issued under Section 21 of the Act was not served on the assessee and the notice dated 30th July, 1980, could not be said to be a notice under Section 21 of the Act and as such on the basis of the aforesaid notice the proceedings were without jurisdiction. This fact has not been disputed by the counsel for the assessee that the notice dated 30th July, 1980, was served upon the assessee on 6th August, 1980. In the aforesaid notice it was mentioned : Aap ke varsh 7-5-76, yoo/section 21 sambandhi mamle ki sunvayee ke liye dhinank 8-8-80, ko samay 11 baje mere dhapthar bikri kar karyalay Hadhras mem nischichath hooyee hei.

(3.) It is also not disputed that the assessee appeared before the Sales Tax Officer on 8th August, 1980, in pursuance of the notice dated 30th July, 1980, which specifically mentioned Section 21 of the Act. This fact clearly indicates that the assessee was to appear in proceedings initiated under Section 21 of the Act. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that the notice dated 30th July, 1980, was a mere intimation of the adjourned date of hearing and was not a notice under Section 21 of the Act. In this connection it may be mentioned that the requirement of law is that the assessee must be informed of the nature of the proceedings and assuming that the notice dated 30th July, 1980, in the instant case was merely an intimation regarding the adjourned date of hearing, the mention of Section 21 in the body of the notice was clearly indicative of the fact that the assessing authority proposed to initiate proceedings under Section 21 of the Act. In this connection a reference may be made to the observation of Honourable C. S. P. Singh, J., in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Martand, Pharmacy, Baraut, Meerut (printed at page, 59 infra); 1980 ATJ (Suppl) 40, which is as follows : Does the mention of 6th March, 1962, inform the assessee that proceedings under Section 21 are being taken against him and call upon him to put in appearance ? It undoubtedly does. The notice specifically mentions Section 21 of the Act, and intimation to the assessee that the proceedings have been adjourned to 17th March, 1962. A reasonable and prudent assessee, from this notice, would have no difficulty in concluding that proceedings under Section 21 have been started by the Sales Tax Officer against him, and they have been adjourned to 17th March, 1962, on which date he should put in appearance. As is apparent from the order sheet, the assessee did put in appearance and objected to the proceedings both on facts and law. This being so, the notice of 6th March, 1962, though only intimating the adjourned date of hearing of the proceedings under Section 21, can be treated as a notice under Section 21.