Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2018 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 888 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxService of notice - Whether in law and on facts, was the Tribunal right in setting aside the order of review dated 29.11.2012 holding that the notice in Form 309 issued in review proceedings was not properly served as per provisions of law hence no reason to go into genuineness of transactions? - Sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002. Held that: - Powers of the review under Section 25 of MVAT Act, 2002 cannot be exercised unilaterally. That before exercising such powers, service of valid notice is condition precedent. If such notice is not served on proper person in accordance with Rule 87(1) of the MVAT Rules, 2005, Reviewing Authority does not get jurisdiction to review the order - It is settled law that want of valid service of notice being a condition precedent and foundation of jurisdiction of Sales Tax Officer, mere participation of the Respondent-Dealer in review proceedings cannot validate the review proceedings. In the case in hand, the Respondent-Dealer was served by one of the modes contemplated under Rule 87(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) and (e) of the MVAT Rules, 2005. There is nothing on record to indicate that the authorities resorted to substituted service after having formed the opinion that the Respondent-Dealer could not be served by one of the modes contemplated under Rule 87(1) - reviewing authority, had not acquired jurisdiction to review its order dated 11.6.09 and cancel the registrations under both the Acts since inception i.e. 14.08.09, for want of valid service of notice. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 37 that notice for review has not been properly served on the Appellant cannot be faulted with - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|