ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA,J. - (1.) The assessee is aggrieved by initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, which has culminated in passing of an ex-party adverse order of assessment against it, which has been affirmed in First Appeal and Revision. It transpires that proceedings of reassessment were initiated against the revisionist in respect of assessment year 1998-99, and notices are stated to have been served under Section 21. Since none appeared pursuant to such notices, as such, an ex parte order of assessment was passed against the revisionist. This order was passed in the name of M/s Mahajan Traders Limited, whereas the name of revisionist concerned is M/s Mahajan Tanner Limited. This mistake was rectified by taking resort to proceedings under Section 22 of the Act.
(2.) The proceedings have been challenged before the authorities essentially on the ground that no notice had been served upon the dealer, in terms of requirement contained under section 21 read with Rule 77, and therefore all consequential proceedings, including the order of reassessment is bad in law. This contention, however has been repelled by the authorities with the finding that the notices had been served upon one Sri Narsi Lal, who had also submitted reply to the notice issued under Section 22. The authorities, therefore, have held that service of notice upon Sri Narsi Lal would be sufficient compliance of the service of notice in terms of Section 21 of the Act read with Rule 77.
(3.) Sri Piyush Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist, contend that the jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 21 emanates from issuing of a valid notice to dealer, and unless such a notice is served upon the dealer in the manner contemplated under Rule 77, the authorities would have no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings.;