GOPAL DAS UTTAM CHAND Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Meerut, has submitted this reference under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for the opinion of this court on the following two questions of law :

(2.) THE assessee is a dealer in cloth at Tehri Garhwal. The assessment year involved in 1955-56. The assessee was assessed to sales tax for that year on 31st January, 1957. Later on, however, information was received by the Sales Tax Officer that the assessee had imported cloth worth much more than what he had shown in the course of the original assessment proceedings. The Sales Tax Officer being of the opinion that a part of the turnover of the assessee had escaped assessment, reopened the assessee's case under section 21 of the Act. The notice under section 21 of the Act is stated to have been served on 1st March, 1960, requiring compliance on 4th March, 1960. As no compliance was made, the Sales Tax Officer made an ex parte assessment estimating the escaped turnover at Rs. 80,000.

(3.) A plain reading of this rule shows that four alternative modes of service mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) have been provided. Clause (d), however, provides that the service by affixation can be resorted to only if none of the other modes is practicable. It follows, therefore, that whenever recourse is desired to be taken to the mode of service mentioned in clause (d), the other modes should be tried first, unless it is shown that none of the other modes was practicable. Out of the two questions referred to us, question No. (1) proceeds on the assumption that the modes mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) were not resorted to. That strictly is not correct, because it appears that the notice was taken by the process-server to the assessee for personal service as contemplated by clause (a). The assessee's shop was found closed and the process-server was unable to ascertain the whereabouts of the assessee. Thereupon he affixed the notice on the shop of the assessee. Admittedly, the remaining two modes mentioned in clauses (b) and (c) were not tried and there is nothing in the assessment order to show as to why that was not done. There is, of course, the following recital in the assessment order :