GURPRASAD RAMPRASAD AGENCIES Vs. COMMISSIONER, TRADE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision under Section 11 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated August 6, 2007 relating to the assessment year, 1982 -83 by which the appeal filed by the applicant was dismissed and the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Trade Tax was allowed.

(2.) HEARD Sri S.D. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri K.M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant submitted that the business of the applicant had been closed in the year 1985 for ever and no business had been carried on at 33/20 Chowk, Kanpur. He submitted that the Tribunal has passed the ex parte order on the ground that no one appeared on the date fixed on July 26, 2007. He submitted that the applicant was not served with any notice for the date fixed on July 26, 2007 and had no information about the said date. He submitted that the alleged service of notice by affixation is not in accordance with rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). He submitted that on June 25, 2007 the case was adjourned because Judicial Member of the Tribunal was on leave and the fresh notice was directed to be issued. Such notice should be served in accordance with the procedure prescribed under rule 77 of the Rules, namely, that first it should be served personally or by registered post and in case, if the services by aforesaid method were not possible after recording reason to this effect direction should be issued for service of the notice; affixation should be made at a conspicuous place in the presence of the witnesses, but the report of the process server reveals that no place is mentioned where the notice has been affixed and the signature of the witness has not been taken and, therefore, the notice was not served in accordance with law. He submitted that the fact that the business was closed in the year 1985 is on the record of the Tribunal. Such fact has been averred in the affidavit which is on record. The service of the notice should be made at the last known place, but the same has not been done. He submitted that in view of the above, the order was passed without giving opportunity to the applicant and, thus, it is liable to be set aside.