Service on counsel as valid notice for limitation defeated delay condonation where no lack of authority was shown.

Service of an appellate order on the assessee's counsel was treated as valid service for limitation purposes where the record did not show that counsel lacked authority under the vakalatnama to receive it. The assessee failed to plead or prove that the counsel was unauthorised, or that the order was not communicated to him, so the explanation for the delay was not accepted. The refusal to condone delay in filing the Sales Tax Tribunal appeal was therefore upheld, and the writ petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal should be condoned when the copy of the appellate order had been served on the assessee's counsel, and whether such service could be treated as valid service on the assessee.

Analysis: The period for filing the appeal had expired long before the Tribunal appeal was instituted, and the explanation for delay rested on the claim that the assessee had not personally received the order. The applicable service rule still permitted service on an agent, and a counsel can act as an agent depending on the authority conferred by the vakalatnama. The assessee did not plead or prove that the counsel was unauthorised to receive the order or that the counsel failed to inform him, and no basis was shown to treat the Tribunal's finding of service through counsel as erroneous.

Conclusion: The refusal to condone delay was upheld and the writ petition failed.

Final Conclusion: Service of the appellate order on the counsel, in the absence of a challenge to the counsel's authority to receive it, was treated as valid service on the assessee, and the dismissal of the delay-condonation application was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the record does not show that counsel lacked authority to receive the order on behalf of the client, service of the order on counsel may constitute valid service on the party for limitation purposes.

---