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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal when service of the appellate order was in serious dispute and the order had not been sent to the address furnished in the memorandum of appeal.
Analysis: The address shown in the memorandum of appeal was the address to which the appellate authority was required to send the copy of its order under Rule 71(1)(a) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Rules, 2005. The order was instead sent to the branch office and there was no satisfactory explanation for non-service at the proper address. In these circumstances, the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act stood rebutted. A litigant should not be denied hearing on a technical objection where delay is not shown to be deliberate or attributable to gross negligence.
Conclusion: The refusal to condone delay was unjustified. The delay was condoned, the appeal was restored, and the matter was directed to be decided on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: Where service of an appellate order at the address furnished by the appellant is not proved, the statutory presumption of service is rebutted and the appellate forum should ordinarily permit the matter to be heard on merits by condoning the resulting delay.