TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appeal was barred by limitation on the ground that the adjudication order had been validly served on the appellant on 18.06.2008, and whether the subsequent supply of a photocopy could furnish a fresh date of receipt for limitation purposes.
Analysis: The limitation question turned on the date of service of the adjudication order. The Revenue produced documentary evidence showing personal service at the appellant's residential address, received by a family member, and the appellant failed to produce any material to discredit that record. Service through the local range office was treated as an approved mode. The later supply of a photocopy was held not to create a fresh limitation date. In view of the settled position that the appellate authority had no power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period, the appeal was beyond time.
Conclusion: The order was held to have been duly served on 18.06.2008, the appeal was hopelessly time-barred, and the challenge to limitation failed in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The proceedings were rejected as barred by limitation, and the stay petition stood rejected along with the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the adjudication order is shown to have been duly served by an approved mode at the appellant's address and that service is not rebutted, the date of that service governs limitation, and a later supply of the same order does not extend the limitation period.
TaxTMI 
