Rebuttable presumption of service means limitation did not start; delay in filing reference applications was condoned.

Limitation for filing reference applications under section 45(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act did not begin because valid service of the Tribunal's orders was not established. The alleged delivery through the Tribunal registry lacked identifiable acknowledgment and did not satisfy rule 46, while the presumption from registered post was rebutted by the petitioner's denial of receipt and the absence of postal proof of delivery to an authorised person. Delay and laches did not bar relief on these facts. The delay was therefore condoned, the reference applications were not treated as time-barred, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was served with the Tribunal's orders so as to start limitation for filing reference applications under section 45(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, and whether the delay in filing those applications deserved condonation.

Analysis: The application for reference had to be filed within 60 days, with a further condonable period of 30 days on sufficient cause. The record did not show valid service of the Tribunal's orders. The alleged delivery through the Tribunal registry was unsupported by identifiable acknowledgment and did not satisfy the service requirements under rule 46. The presumption arising from registered post was rebutted by the petitioner's affidavit denying receipt, and the department produced no postal records or other proof of delivery to an authorised person. On the facts, the plea of delay and laches also could not defeat the writ petition.

Conclusion: The delay was liable to be condoned and the reference applications could not be rejected as time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the delay in filing the reference applications was condoned, and the matter was sent back to the Tribunal for decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A presumption of service from dispatch by registered post is rebuttable, and where valid service on an authorised recipient is not established, limitation for further statutory proceedings does not begin to run.

---