JUDGMENT Prakash Krishna, J.
1. The present revision arises out of proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act relevant to the assessment year 1992-93. The applicant is carrying on the business of food grains in commission agency. On the February 1996 the original assessment order for the assessment year 1982-83 was passed. After receipt of certain information from the Trade Tax offer (SBI) the proceeding under Section 21 were shought to be taken by the department to assess the escaped turnover. The assessing officer passed an order on 20th of march, 1996 for issue of notice under Section 21 of the Act fixing 29th of March 1996. The notice was sent by registered AD as well as for fixation. The registered notice was sent vide dispatch No. 199 (a) dated 20.03.1996 and the notice for fixation was sent by dispatch No. 20.03.1996
2. The assessee after participating in assessment proceeding on few dates. Lets the case unattended. The assessing officer by the order dated 21st of September, 1996 reassessed the turnover and imposed tax, as the assessee failed to turn up in spite of several notices. This order was challenged before the deputy commissioner (appeals). In the appeal the assessee disputed the very jurisdiction of the assessing authority to initiate the reassessment proceeding to the ground that the notice initiating the reassessment proceeding was not validly served on him. Service of notice by affixation is no service in the eyes of law, in view of Rule 77 of U.P. Trade Tax Rules. The appellate authority rejected the said contention on the ground that the assessing authority served the notice after the following the procedure by affixation. The AD (acknowledgment due) does not contain either the seal of the post office or its report. Therefore, the service of notice by affixation was treated as valid service.
3. The tribunal in further appeal affirmed the order of the first appellate authority.
4. Heard shri Kunwar Saxena, the learned counsel for the applicant and the V.K. Pandey the learned counsel for the department.
5. Shri Kunwar Saxena, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there was no valid service of notice issue under Section 21 of the Act and as such the in entire proceeding is without jurisdiction. Service of notice issued Under Section 21 of the Act is a condition precedent for initiation of the assessment proceeding. It was submitted that the notice by registered post was served on the applicant on 10th of April 1996 which was beyond the prescribed period of limitation at the relevant point time the period of limitation of initiation of proceeding was prescribed as three years from the close of the assessment vide Section 21 (3) of the Act. The submitted that before the tribunal of the photostat copy of the certificate issued by the post office was also produced to show that the notice sent by registered post was served on 10th April, 1996. the reassessment proceeding cannot be held to be within the prescribed period of limitation on the basis of the notice served by affixation as the service by affixation was contrary to the provisions of Rule 77 of U.P. Trade Tax rules. In contra, the learned standing counsel submitted that the order of the tribunal is perfectly justified. The assessee indisputedly participate in the reassessment proceeding without raising any such objection before the assessing authority, is debarred to raise plea of valid service of notice within the prescribed period in appeal or at the subsequent stages of the reassessment proceeding.
6. A full bench decision of this court in the case of Laxmi Narain Anand Prakash v. C.S.T. 1980 UPTC 125 has examined The controversy involved in the present case in depth. It has been held that mere issue of notice is not sufficient. The condition to proceed under Section 21 would be exercised only if condition precedent was satisfied and the for assessment of reassessment under Section 21 was not only issued but validly served on the assessee. The participation of the assessee will not cure the invalidity of the notice and will not cloth the assessing authority with jurisdiction to proceed under Section 21 of the Act.
7. In the present case it is correct that the assessee did not raise any issue in the assessment proceedings. The First Appellate Authority rejected the Contention of the assessee on the ground that the service of notice by affixation was valid service. The Tribunal was of the view that as the assessing authority on 20th of March, 1996 ordered the issue of notice by registered post as well as service by affixation. Generally, as observed by the Tribunal, in about 8 to 10 days the registered letters are served on the addressee. The assessing authority keeping in view the paucity of time ordered that service of notice be also obtained by affixation. Ultimately in held that the notice was served on the assessee on 27th March, 1996 by affixation was validly served. Question boils down to this as to whether the service of notice by affixation was a valid service of notice issued under Section 21 of the Act. At this stage it is relevant to refer the Rule 77 of the Trade Tax Rules. The said rules provide various modes of service. Rule 77 (1) (b) empowers the service by registered post. Proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 77 says that for affecting service by affixation the concerned authority shall record the prior reasons. The Tribunal has quoted the order sheet dated 29th of March 1996 in its order. No reasons have been recorded by the Assessing Officer for ordering the service of notice by affixation. In absence of any recorded reasons, it cannot be said that the notice by affixation was properly served on the application. The Tribunal has sought to supply the reasons in its order by making observations that there was paucity Of time as the period of limitation to serve the notice under Section 21 of the Act was going to expire on 31st of March, 1996. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohendra Singh Gill v. The chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 851
8. The reasons given by a quasi judicial authority cannot be supplemented by way of affidavit or otherwise. When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the notice was validly served on the dealer applicant on 28th of March, 1996 is contrary to law and cannot be approved. It is not in dispute that if the service of notice by affixation is held invalid, the reassessment proceedings is time barred.
9. The inescapable conclusion is that the authorities below were not justified in initiation the reassessment proceedings and the same is liable to be set aside.
10. In the result the revision is allowed with costs of Rs. 500/-. The order of the Tribunal is set aside.