Registered-post refusal must identify the recipient to sustain presumption of service for discontinued firms.

Registered-post service creates only a rebuttable presumption, and a bare endorsement of "refused" is insufficient where the notice was sent to a discontinued firm and the partners had separated. The refusal report must identify the person who declined delivery so that service is complete and the presumption can properly arise or be rebutted. On these facts, the refusal endorsement did not amount to proper service, and the service relied on by the revenue was held insufficient.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an endorsement of refusal by the postal authorities on a registered envelope containing the assessment order and demand notice, sent to the correct address of a discontinued firm, amounts to proper service when the endorsement does not identify the person who refused delivery; (ii) whether, in such circumstances, it is necessary for the postal authorities to record the name of the person who refused to take delivery.

Issue (i): Whether an endorsement of refusal by the postal authorities on a registered envelope containing the assessment order and demand notice, sent to the correct address of a discontinued firm, amounts to proper service when the endorsement does not identify the person who refused delivery.

Analysis: Service by registered post under the rules permits a presumption of service, but that presumption is rebuttable. Where the assessee is a firm that has discontinued business and the partners have separated, a bare endorsement of "refused" without showing who refused delivery does not provide a complete report enabling the party concerned to rebut service. In such a situation, the endorsement does not constitute prima facie proof of service under the statutory scheme governing service and the general presumption of service.

Conclusion: The endorsement of refusal without identification of the person refusing delivery did not amount to proper service, and the answer was in the negative.

Issue (ii): Whether, in such circumstances, it is necessary for the postal authorities to record the name of the person who refused to take delivery.

Analysis: The rules relating to service contemplate a complete report where refusal is relied upon as the basis for drawing a presumption of service. In the setting of a discontinued firm and separated partners, recording the name of the person who refused delivery is essential to make the refusal report complete and workable, so that the presumption can either arise or be effectively rebutted.

Conclusion: It was necessary for the postal authorities to record the name of the person who refused delivery, and the answer was in the affirmative.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the assessee because the service relied upon by the revenue was held insufficient on the facts, and the refusal report was required to be complete before a presumption of service could arise.

Ratio Decidendi: A refusal endorsement on a registered postal article can raise a presumption of service only when the report is complete enough to identify the refusing person, particularly where the addressee is a discontinued firm and the persons liable have separated.

---