AZAD CROWN WORKS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), made at the instance of the assessees.

(2.) The question referred to us for our consideration is as follows :

(3.) The facts giving rise to this question are as follows : By an order dated 12th September, 1964, the assessees were assessed ex parte by the Sales Tax Officer, B Ward, Unit III, Bombay, for the period from 1st April, 1962, to 31st March, 1963, under the said Act. The assessees filed an appeal against this order before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. It was contended by the assessees in the appeal that the notice for assessment was not properly served on the proprietor of the assessees. This contention was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal of the assessees. The assessees then preferred a second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, which met with the same fate. Before the Tribunal it was contended by the assessees that as the notice for assessment, which was in form 27, was not served either on the proprietor or the authorised agent or an adult male member of the family of the proprietor of the assessees, the requirement of rule 68 of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, was not complied with. From the facts found by the Tribunal it appears that this notice of assessment was served on some person at the business premises of the assessees on 4th July, 1964, and his signature obtained in token of receipt. It further appears that on 18th January, 1964, the notice of assessment in respect of the earlier assessment period, addressed to the assessees, was served on the very same person on whom the present notice has been served. This notice was accepted by that person under the rubber-stamp of the assessees' works and the assessment was made pursuant to this notice and the amount which the assessees were required to pay under this assessment order was paid thereafter in respect of that period, viz., the earlier period. Similarly, another assessment notice in respect of the said earlier period, addressed to the assessees, was served on the very same person on 4th July, 1964, and an assessment order made in pursuance thereof. The assessees went in appeal against this assessment order and got the same set aside on the ground that there was already an assessment order in respect of the same period in pursuance of the notice served on 18th January, 1964. On these facts, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the notice in question in the present case was served on the agent of the proprietor of the assessees and that the assessees would not have accepted the assessment order passed in respect of the said earlier period without making a grievance about the service of the notice, which was served on the same person, had that notice not been properly served. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was sufficient material on the record to conclude that the person on whom the notice in the present case was served was the duly authorised agent of the assessees.