R.K.Gulati, J. - (1.) This revision has been filed under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (now called U.P. Trade Tax Act) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and is directed against the order dated March 15, 1990 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench I, Bareilly.
(2.) The revisionist, Kumaon Tractors and Motors, Bareilly, in the assessment year 1971-72, which is in dispute, was a partnership-firm constituted by two partners and it carried on business as a main dealer of Tractors and Farms Equipments Ltd. The said firm, hereinafter referred to as "the assessee", was assessed to sales tax by an assessment order dated August 30, 1974 for the year in dispute on the disclosed turnover of Rs. 14,41,545.54. Subsequent to the assessment order the Sales Tax Officer (S.I.B), Bareilly came across certain information, which indicated that some taxable turnover relating to the said assessment year had escaped assessment and was not returned by the assessee as a part of its taxable turnover. Acting on the said information, the assessing authority took proceedings under Section 21 of the Act with a view to bring to tax the turnover which had escaped assessment. It may be pointed out that as a result of the reconstitution of the assessee-firm, it stood dissolved with effect from May 31, 1972 and a new partnership-firm started functioning at the place of business where the erstwhile firm carried on its business earlier. The notice under Section 21 for reassessment for the year in question was issued in the name of the erstwhile firm at the address where it carried on its business before its discontinuance. The notice under Section 21 was issued for the first time on March 22, 1976 fixing March 24, 1976 for appearance as a date for hearing. However, this notice was returned unserved by the process-server with his report that he had met the manager of the firm who refused to accept the notice after going through its contents by saying that the notice would be received by the owners of the firm. Another notice was sent on March 24, 1976 fixing March 26, 1976 and it was also returned unserved by the process-server with a report that he had met an employee of the firm who stated that the notice could be accepted by the partners of the firm alone who were stated to be out of station. Thereafter a third notice dated March 27, 1976 was issued under Section 21 fixing March 30, 1976 which was served by affixation as the service of that notice was also refused. In due course, in pursuance of the notice under Section 21 aforesaid, the reassessment order was completed and an additional turnover of Rs. 8,50,000 was brought to tax over and above the turnover assessed under the original assessment order.
(3.) The record of the case indicates that before the assessment was completed, the assessee appeared before the assessing authority and contested the validity of the service of notice under Section 21 by affixture and demanded cross-examination of the process-server which was not granted due to paucity of time as the assessment was shortly becoming barred by time.;