JUDICIARY ON GST AUDIT

JUDICIARY ON GST AUDIT

 

Jhansi Sahkari Kraya Vikraya Samiti Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow [1978] 042 STC 0454

M/s. Jhansi Sahkari Kraya Vikraya Samiti was assessed to sales tax ex Parte by an order. The assessment order was served on the co-operative society's accountant. Subsequently, the same assessment order was served on the secretary of the co-operative society. The society filed an appeal and raised an objection that the appeal was beyond time. The Judge (Appeals) held that service on the accountant was valid and dismissed the appeal as barred by time. The application for condonation of delay was also rejected. The assessee went up in revision but failed.

At the instance of the assessee, the Judge (Revisions) has submitted this statement of the case for the opinion of this court on the following questions of law:

               "(1) Whether the accountant of M/s. Jhansi Sahkari Kraya Vikraya Samiti is the applicant's agent within the meaning of rule 77(1(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules?

               (2) Whether the service of the ex parte assessment order dated 3rd August, 1967, on the dealer's accountant on 13th October, 1967, is valid and legal service thereof having a binding effect upon the applicant?

               (3) Whether the institution of an appeal on 2nd February, 1968, was within the prescribed period of limitation in the circumstances of this case?"

               Rule 77(1) (a) of the Sales Tax Rules, as it stood in 1967, provided:

               "(1) The service of any notice, summons or order under the Act or the Rules may be effected in any of the following ways, namely:

 (a) by giving or tendering a copy thereof to the dealer or licensee, or his manager or agent; or".

               Rule 77-A provides:

               "Unless otherwise provided in the Act or the Rules anything which is by the Act or the Rules required or permitted to be done by a dealer, except when he is required to attend-personally for examination on oath or affirmation, may be done by a lawyer, an accountant or an authorized agent appointed by the dealer in writing in this behalf; and process served on or notice given to such lawyer, accountant or the authorized agent shall be as effectual as if the same had been served on or given to the dealer in person; and all provisions of the Act or the Rules relating to the service of process on or the giving of a notice to a dealer shall be applicable to the service of process on or the giving of notice to such a lawyer, accountant or the authorized agent."

Court held that accountant of the assessee was not its agent within the meaning of rule 77(1) (a), as it stood in the year 1967.Service of the assessment order on the accountant was not valid and legal service. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was within time.

Follow Us on