Registered post service and settlement eligibility under sales tax scheme upheld; prior hearing not required for threshold rejection.

A notice sent by registered post carried a statutory presumption of service on expiry of the normal transit period, and a bare denial was insufficient to rebut it; the dismissal of the revision for default was therefore upheld. A settlement application under the sales tax dispute scheme was maintainable only where an appeal or revision was pending, and because the revision had already been dismissed, the applicant was ineligible at the threshold. The rejection of the settlement application without a prior hearing was consequently held valid, and both impugned orders were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the dismissal of the revision for default was justified on the basis of due service of notice under the service rules. (ii) Whether rejection of the settlement application without prior hearing was valid when no revision was pending.

Issue (i): Whether the dismissal of the revision for default was justified on the basis of due service of notice under the service rules.

Analysis: The notice had been issued by registered post, and the governing rule provided that a notice so sent would be deemed to have been received on expiry of the normal transit period unless the contrary was proved. The Court found no material beyond a bare denial to displace that presumption. The additional step of affixing the hearing date on the notice board was held not to indicate any doubt about service by registered post.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the revision for default was upheld and the challenge to service of notice failed.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the settlement application without prior hearing was valid when no revision was pending.

Analysis: The settlement statute required a pending appeal or revision as a condition of eligibility. On the records, the revision had already been dismissed long before the settlement application was made, so the applicant was ineligible at the threshold. The Court held that the statutory scheme contemplated hearing at a later stage and did not require a pre-decisional hearing before an initial rejection based on ineligibility disclosed from the records.

Conclusion: The rejection of the settlement application without prior hearing was held to be valid.

Final Conclusion: Both impugned orders were sustained, and no relief was granted to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice sent by registered post attracts a statutory presumption of service unless rebutted by evidence, and a settlement application under the sales tax dispute scheme is not maintainable where no appeal or revision is pending, so an initial rejection on that ground does not require a prior hearing.

---