9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (8) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to attend on 26th March, 1964, was validly served on the assessee? (3) Whether the assessment order and the notice of demand were duly served on the assessee? " We are concerned with the assessment year 1959-60. The assessee was assessed ex parte on 21st March, 1964, by the Sales Tax Officer, Allahabad. It appears that the assessee is ordinarily doing business at Lucknow. But he got a certain contract at Allahabad in the relevant assessment year. So he opened an office at No. 2, Sapru Road, Allahabad, under the name and style of M/s. Singhal Electric Works, Allahabad. The proprietor of the works is P.D. Singhal. The notice issued under section 21 was served on Bhrigu Prakash Saxena and not on the proprietor. It was served sometime in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry objection. In the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the first two questions arise out of the order of the judge (Revisions). So we shall not answer those two questions. The third question has a bearing on the issue of limitation. The appellate authority and the Judge (Revisions) both have held that Ram Swarup, who received the assessment order and the notice of demand on 26th March, 1964, was either a manager or agent of P.D. Singhal and that accordingly, service of the order and the notice of demand on him is sufficient service on P.D. Singhal in accordance with rule 77(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules. They have also held that service is sufficient under rule 77(b) as well. Rule 77 pertinently reads: "The service of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... copy of the order and the notice of demand were left at No. 2, Sapru Road, Allahabad. The finding is that they were tendered to Ram Swarup. So the other requirement of clause (b) is also not fulfilled. Clause (a) of rule 77 permits service of notice or order on the manager or agent of an assessee. The finding of the Judge (Revisions) is that Ram Swarup was either a manager or an agent of the assessee. The finding is not based on any direct evidence of the appointment of Ram Swarup as manager or agent by P.D. Singhal. It is based on merely circumstantial evidence. The Judge (Revisions) has relied on three circumstances. Firstly, the first notice under section 21 of the Sales Tax Act was served on one Bhrigu Prakash Saxena on 23rd March, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondence by Ram Swarup. The two circumstances relied on by the judge (Revisions) will show only that Ram Swarup had voluntarily accepted notices on two occasions. From those circumstances, no inference can be drawn about the consent of the assessee to Ram Swarup's acting as his agent or manager. "No one can become the agent of another person except by the will of that other person. His will may be manifested in writing or orally, or simply by placing another in a situation in which, according to the ordinary rules of law, or perhaps it would be more correct to say, according to the ordinary usages of mankind, that other is understood to represent and act for the person who has so placed him; but in every case it is only by the will of the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
