ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) This revision by the State is against an order passed by the Tribunal dated 13th December, 1995, whereby second appeal filed by the assessee has been allowed in respect of proceedings initiated under Section 21 for the years 1980-1981 and 1981- 1982. This revision has been filed on following question of law:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment and order of the Tribunal under Section 22 reversing the original judgment and order passed after discussing all facts and law is valid and whether such order can be passed under Section 22 which tantamount to change of opinion?"
(2.) The Tribunal has returned a finding that no notice under Section 21(1) has been served upon the assessee. Service of notice under Section 21 of the Act has been held to be mandatory, and in its absence, proceedings itself are rendered wholly without jurisdiction. The observation made by a Full Bench in M/s. Laxmi Narain Anand Prakash v. Commissioner Sales Tax, 1980 UPTC 125 , is clear in that regard. Para-16 of the judgment is reproduced:- "The invalidity of the notice goes to the very root of the matter. The service of notice under Section 21 of the Act is a condition precedent to assume the jurisdiction of reassessment. The jurisdiction can be conferred only by Statute and not by consent or acquiescence, even if the assessee has taken part in the reassessment proceedings, in the absence of valid notice being served, the entire proceedings will be without jurisdiction and void and even consent on the part of the assessee would confer no jurisdiction."
(3.) This judgment has been followed in a recent decision of this Court in Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. 160 of 2011 (M/s Mahajan Tanners Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. Lucknow), dated 5.1.2017.;