TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid date and in case of filing such forms before respondent No. 2, along with an application in this regard, respondent No. 2 shall consider the application in accordance with law and shall take cognizance of the aforesaid forms for deciding the matter. - W.P. Nos. 1322,1323 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 28-1-2013 - KRISHN KUMAR LAHOTI AND SIDDIQUI M.A., JJ. For the Appellant : Mukesh Agrawal For the Respondents : Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate, ORDER:- This order shall decide W.P. No. 1322 of 2008 and W.P. No. 1323 of 2008 filed by the same party against imposition of Central sales tax for the period April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998 and April 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999. Two revisions were preferred by the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that inspite of notice, the petitioner had failed to appear before the revisional authority. Before September 12, 2005, various notices were issued to the petitioner but he had failed to appear before the revisional authority so there is no reason to set aside the order, annexure P5 to remit the matter back. From the perusal of the record, it appears that on September 12, 2005 the revisional authority had issued the notice to the petitioner which was served by affixture. Rule 86(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Rules, 1995 which is applicable in the present case provides thus: (1) Notice or summons or order under the Act or any rules made thereunder may be served by any of the fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he authority can pass an order for service by affixure. In case the notice is served by affixture then it has to be pasted on conspicuous part of the building or business premises and due procedure as provided is to be followed but in the present case no service report by affixture has been filed by the respondents before this court. There is no order of the revisional authority to show that it was satisfied that ordinarily a notice could not have been served by hand or by post and to direct service by affixture of the notice, in absence of which, the contention of the petitioner appears to be correct that no notice was served upon the petitioner and the matter was decided ex parte. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find it appropriate to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
