Presumption of regularity in appellate orders defeated the department's demand notice after adverse inference and proof of genuineness.

Official acts and appellate orders carry a presumption of regularity, and a party alleging fabrication must rebut that presumption with cogent evidence. Certified copies of the appellate orders were treated as admissible public documents, and affidavits from the person who prepared and dispatched the orders, as well as the appellate authority, supported the claim that the appeals had been heard and decided after due opportunity. Because the department produced no material to contradict this evidence and did not examine the concerned representative, adverse inference was drawn. The appellate orders were therefore accepted as genuine and effective, and the notice demanding deposit of the adjusted refund amount was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate orders relied upon by the assessee were genuine and shown to have been passed after hearing; whether the departmental notice demanding deposit of the refunded amount could survive.

Analysis: A statutory presumption attaches to official acts and the regular performance of duty. The party alleging irregularity or fabrication bears the burden of rebutting that presumption by evidence, and a mere denial is insufficient. The assessee produced certified copies of the appellate orders, which are admissible as public documents, and supported them by affidavits from the person who prepared and dispatched the orders and from the appellate authority who stated that the appeals had been heard and decided after due opportunity. The department did not produce material to rebut this evidence and did not examine the concerned departmental representative despite the specific controversy. In these circumstances, adverse inference was warranted against the department, and the appellate orders were accepted as genuine and effective.

Conclusion: The appellate orders were held to be genuine and duly passed, and the notice demanding deposit of the adjusted refund amount was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The assessee established that the refund adjustment was founded on valid appellate orders, and the impugned demand notice was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Official acts and appellate orders carry a presumption of regularity, which can be displaced only by cogent evidence; certified copies of public documents are admissible, and adverse inference may be drawn where the party with special knowledge withholds material evidence.

---