TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether copies of the assessment orders sent by registered post were validly served on the assessee on the date of delivery to a person who acknowledged receipt on its behalf; (ii) whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy of revision.
Issue (i): whether copies of the assessment orders sent by registered post were validly served on the assessee on the date of delivery to a person who acknowledged receipt on its behalf.
Analysis: Rule 45 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules required service of the assessment order with the notice of demand, and Rule 77 permitted service by registered post. Once the assessment orders were properly addressed and sent by registered post, the presumption under section 27 of the U.P. General Clauses Act applied that service was effected in the ordinary course of post. That presumption was rebuttable, but the assessee's attempt to show that the recipient did not hand over the envelope was disbelieved. The acknowledgement signed by another person on behalf of the addressee was sufficient to support service, and the presumption remained unrebutted.
Conclusion: The assessment orders were duly served on the assessee on 22 February 1966.
Issue (ii): whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy of revision.
Analysis: The assessee had a revision remedy under section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. In the absence of any special ground justifying invocation of the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition could not be entertained.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the dismissal of the appeals failed, and the assessee obtained no relief in writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: Proper dispatch of a document by registered post raises a rebuttable presumption of service under the general clauses statute, and where an adequate statutory revision remedy exists, writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked.
TaxTMI 
