Statutory limitation and invalid service of notice rendered penalty proceedings unsustainable and the order was set aside.

Penalty proceedings were held unsustainable because they were initiated after the statutory limitation period had expired and the record did not establish valid service of the adjudication notice. The purported substituted service by affixture failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements for such service, and jurisdiction was assumed without proof of due notice to the appellant. The proceedings were therefore contrary to natural justice, and the penalty order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty proceedings and the impugned order were vitiated by expiry of the statutory time limit and by failure to effect valid service of notice on the appellant.

Analysis: The penalty arose from transactions of 1995, but the proceedings were initiated only much later. The record showed correspondence in 2001 and 2002 indicating that the appellant had furnished supporting documents, while the adjudication notice was not shown to have been personally served before resort was made to affixture. The service by affixture was not established to have complied with the mandatory requirements governing substituted service. As the assumption of jurisdiction occurred after the relevant limitation period and without proof of due service, the proceedings were unsustainable and contrary to natural justice.

Conclusion: The penalty order was invalid and liable to be set aside in favour of the appellant.

---