Valid service by registered post: refusal endorsement can sustain notice service and support assessment proceedings.

Refusal of a notice sent by registered post to the correct address may support a presumption of valid service under the relevant sales tax rules, and the endorsement of refusal is not immaterial merely because earlier personal service attempts failed. On that basis, the Tribunal erred in annulling the assessments on the footing that service was invalid. The Court also held that where the material facts needed to answer the legal question are already found in the appellate orders and no prejudice is caused, it may decide the question of law without insisting on a separate statement of case.

---

---

Issues: Whether refusal of a notice sent by registered post amounted to valid service, whether the Tribunal was justified in treating the refusal as immaterial and annulling the assessments, and whether the High Court could treat the facts found in the appellate order as a statement of case for deciding the question of law.

Analysis: Rule 22 of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules made the Orissa Sales Tax procedural rules applicable to assessments under the Central Sales Tax Act. Rule 84 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules permitted service of notice either in the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or by registered post. When a registered letter is sent to the correct address and is returned with an endorsement of refusal, the refusal is sufficient to support a presumption of valid service. The postman's endorsement of refusal was therefore not rendered immaterial merely because earlier service through the process server had failed. The Court also held that where the facts necessary to answer the legal question are already found in the orders and no prejudice is caused, it may proceed to answer the question without insisting on a separate statement of case.

Conclusion: Refusal of the registered letter constituted valid service of notice on the facts of the case, and the Tribunal was in annulling the assessments on the footing that service was invalid. The High Court was justified in answering the question of law on the existing findings.

Final Conclusion: The legal effect of the decision was that the assessments could not be annulled on the ground of defective service, and the matter had to proceed in accordance with the Tribunal's further orders under the statute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where notice is validly sent by registered post to the correct address and is returned with an endorsement of refusal, valid service may be presumed, and such refusal is sufficient service for the purpose of further assessment proceedings.

---