Registered post service and merits-based disposal: proper notice creates valid service, and absence cannot justify default dismissal.

Service of a notice by properly addressed registered post to a firm was valid because a firm is a person for service purposes and a presumption of due service arose under the General Clauses Act; the material produced was insufficient to rebut that presumption, and acknowledgement by an employee at the firm's office supported valid service. Where the tribunal's notice stated that, in default of appearance, the appeal would be heard and determined in the assessee's absence, the tribunal was required to decide the appeal on merits and could not dismiss it for default. The notice wording controlled the mode of disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service of the notice by registered post on the firm was valid under the income-tax law; (ii) whether the Appellate Tribunal could dismiss the appeal for default when the notice stated that, in default of appearance, the appeal would be heard and determined in the absence of the assessee.

Issue (i): Whether service of the notice by registered post on the firm was valid under the income-tax law.

Analysis: A firm is a "person" for the purposes of service by post. Where a notice is properly addressed and sent by registered post to the address supplied by the assessee, a statutory presumption of due service arises under the General Clauses Act. That presumption may be rebutted, but the material relied upon here was found unreliable and did not displace it. The fact that the notice was received in the office by an employee who acknowledged it on behalf of the firm was sufficient to support valid service.

Conclusion: Valid service by post was effected on the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Appellate Tribunal could dismiss the appeal for default when the notice stated that, in default of appearance, the appeal would be heard and determined in the absence of the assessee.

Analysis: The notice conveyed that the appeal would be heard and determined even if the assessee did not appear. In that situation, the Tribunal was bound to decide the appeal on merits and could not treat non-appearance as a ground for dismissal for default. A dismissal for default is not a hearing and determination of the appeal, and the form of notice controlled the manner in which the Tribunal could proceed.

Conclusion: The Tribunal could not dismiss the appeal for default on the wording of the notice.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that service of notice was valid, but the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal for default in the circumstances disclosed by the notice.

Ratio Decidendi: Properly addressed registered post creates a presumption of valid service, and where notice informs the party that the matter will be heard and determined in absence, the adjudicating authority must decide on merits rather than dismiss for default.

---