news round up - Taxmann

2010] Maruthi Estate v. Appellate Dy. CCT (Mad.)
239
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
is whether there has been proper service of the order of assessment on the
petitioner.
8. The files relating to the assessment were produced in court. It is to be
noted that in the acknowledgement, there is a signature with date 27-10-
2004. The name of the person or the designation is not found and there is
no seal of the petitioner company. On this ground, the learned counsel for
the petitioner would contend that they have not been served with the
order. However, this issue is not a disputed question of fact and this court
will not go into the said aspect. The manner of service of notice under the
Act is in terms of rule 52(1) of the TNGST Rules, 1959. For the purpose of
this case, the Explanation of rule 52(1) reads as follows :—
“Service of notices.— The service on a dealer of any notice, summons or order
under the Act or these rules may be effected in any of the following ways,
namely:—
(a) by giving or tendering it to such dealer or his manager or agent or the
legal practitioner appointed to represent him or to his authorised
representative;
Explanation.— Endorsement by person who delivers the notice, etc., of having
tendered or given it will be proof for the purpose of this sub-rule.”
9. A perusal of the Explanation shows that there should be an endorsement
by a person, who delivers the notice or order of having tendered or
given it and such endorsement will be proof for the purpose of the abovesaid
rule. It is to be noted in the present case that there is no such
endorsement by person, who delivered the notice. One fact which has to
be borne in mind is that the order of assessment was passed on 27-10-2004
and said to have been delivered in the office of the petitioner in their
Alancholai estate on the same day and according to the writ petitioner, the
distance between the respondent office and the estate office is more than
25 kms.
10. In view of the above finding to the effect that there is no endorsement
by the person from the respondent Department, it has to be noted that
there is no proper service of the order of assessment on the petitionercompany
in terms of rule 52(1) of the TNGST Rules. In that view, it has to
be taken that the order of assessment was served on the petitionercompany
only on 18-11-2004. In such circumstances, the impugned order
has to be held as bad in law and is accordingly set aside.
11. Under normal circumstances, this court would remand the matter for
fresh consideration of the first respondent for the purpose of seeing
whether sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay.
However, in the instant case, it is to be noted that the appeal papers itself
were pending before the first respondent for more than 3½ years after a
number was assigned to the condone delay petition and after the period
of 3½ years, the papers were returned on 19-6-2008 on the ground that
there is delay of 52 days. The said appeal papers has been once again represented
and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed.
GOODS & SERVICES TAX CASES ❑ JANUARY 20 - FEBRUARY 4, 2010 ◆ 115