- (1.) From information gathered from various sales tax authorities, the Sales Tax Officer was of the opinion that for the assessment year 1964-65, the assessees turnover of purchases had escaped assessment to tax. The Sales Tax Officer issued notice to the assessee under S. 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, fixing March 28, 1969 for hearing. This notice was served by affixation. The parties are in controversy as to what happened to March 28, 1969. The Departments case is that the assessee appeared on that date, applied for an adjournment which was granted and April 24, 1969 was fixed for hearing. The assessee appeared on April 24, 1969. On that day, his statement was recorded and, at the instance of the assessee, the case was adjourned to June 13, 1969. On this date, the assessee did not appear. The case was then fixed for November 29, 1969. Again the assessee did not appear. The case was ultimately fixed for January 9, 1970. Since the assessee did not appear on this date as well, the Sales Tax Officer considered the matter and passed an assessment order under S. 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, determining the escaped turnover at Rs. 9 lacs on which tax liability of Rs. 15,000/- was fixed.
(2.) Aggrieved against this assessment order dated January 10, 1970, the assessee went up in appeal. He reiterated that no valid notice was either issued or served and that he did not appear on March 28, 1969. The proceedings were without jurisdiction. The determination of the escaped turnover was also challenged. The Assistant Commissioner also after stating in detail the submissions of the parties, held that in his opinion, service of the notice under S. 21 was valid. He found that the assessment order has not been framed after due consideration of all relevant aspects. He hence allowed the appeal and remanded the case for giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then making a fresh order.
(3.) The assessee was not satisfied; he filed a revision. He challenged the validly of the notice. The Judge (Revisions) held that the service of notice was validly done by affixation, the assessee had full knowledge of the proceedings under S. 21 for which March 28, 1969 had been fixed. He had appeared on that date and had applied for an adjournment. The proceedings for reassessment were valid. The revision was accordingly dismissed.;