Registered letter marked refused can raise presumed due service, while income-tax references stay confined to referred questions.

In a reference under the Income-tax Act, the High Court's jurisdiction was confined to the questions actually referred and it could not enlarge the reference by relying on subsequent events or documents outside the statement of case; such material was therefore excluded. On postal service, a registered letter returned with the endorsement "refused" attracted a rebuttable presumption of due service where the letter was properly addressed, prepaid and posted, supported by the ordinary-course presumptions under the Evidence Act and General Clauses Act. The refusal endorsement was treated as sufficient unless rebutted, without requiring formal proof of the postman's handwriting or examination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a reference under the Income-tax Act, the High Court could take into account subsequent events and documents not forming part of the statement of case. (ii) Whether a registered letter returned with the postal endorsement "refused" gives rise to a presumption of due service on the addressee.

Issue (i): Whether, in a reference under the Income-tax Act, the High Court could take into account subsequent events and documents not forming part of the statement of case.

Analysis: The jurisdiction in a reference under section 66 was held to be advisory and confined to the questions actually referred by the Tribunal. The Court held that it could not enlarge the reference by introducing new questions, nor could it consider events occurring after the Tribunal's order or documents excluded from the paper book. A case could be sent back only to fill gaps or clarify facts necessary to answer the referred questions, not to create a fresh controversy.

Conclusion: The subsequent events and excluded documents were not to be considered, and the procedural prayer based on them failed.

Issue (ii): Whether a registered letter returned with the postal endorsement "refused" gives rise to a presumption of due service on the addressee.

Analysis: Under the General Clauses Act, service by registered post is deemed to be effected by proper addressing, prepayment, and posting, unless the contrary is proved. The Court applied this statutory presumption together with the evidentiary presumption under the Evidence Act concerning ordinary course of business and public office practice. It held that an endorsement of refusal made in the usual course of postal business supports a rebuttable presumption that the letter was tendered to and refused by the addressee, even without formal proof of the postman's handwriting or examination.

Conclusion: The endorsement "refused" raised a presumption of due service, and the first question was answered in the affirmative.

Final Conclusion: The reference succeeded on the service question, while the attempt to rely on later events and excluded material was rejected; the matter was therefore concluded against the assessee on the substantive procedural challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a registered letter properly addressed and posted is returned with a postal endorsement of refusal, the court may presume due service on the addressee, subject to rebuttal; in a reference under the Income-tax Act, the High Court cannot travel beyond the questions actually referred or consider subsequent events outside the statement of case.

---