TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the notice under section 7 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 was duly served on the petitioner and whether the use of a facsimile signature on the served copy invalidated service; (ii) whether the objection that execution of the certificate had become barred by limitation had to be heard and decided by the Board of Revenue, and whether summary dismissal of the revision was lawful.
Issue (i): whether the notice under section 7 of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913 was duly served on the petitioner and whether the use of a facsimile signature on the served copy invalidated service.
Analysis: Service was evidenced by the bailiff's return showing acceptance by the petitioner's son. The Act and the relevant rules did not require a handwritten signature by the Certificate Officer on the served copy. The term "sign" was construed broadly enough to include a facsimile or stamped signature, since a signature need only identify the person whose name it purports to be. The defect, if any, caused no prejudice and was also cured by the validating legislation.
Conclusion: The notice under section 7 was duly served and the objection based on the facsimile signature failed.
Issue (ii): whether the objection that execution of the certificate had become barred by limitation had to be heard and decided by the Board of Revenue, and whether summary dismissal of the revision was lawful.
Analysis: The limitation objection did not deny liability at the stage of filing the certificate, but raised a subsequent bar to execution under the Act. Such an objection was required to be heard under the statutory scheme. The Commissioner wrongly treated it as time-barred in the sense of a section 9 objection, and the Board of Revenue erred in summarily dismissing the revision without notice or hearing. The proper course was for the Board to determine the limitation issue according to law.
Conclusion: The limitation objection had to be heard and decided on merits, and the summary dismissal was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The service challenge was rejected, but the matter was sent back so that the limitation objection could be determined in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A facsimile signature can satisfy the statutory requirement of signing a notice where the statute does not insist on handwriting, and a post-certificate limitation objection affecting execution must be judicially heard rather than summarily rejected.
TaxTMI 
