Effective service and limitation bar upheld where postal records matched the assessee's own address details.

Service of the appellate orders was treated as effective because the postal acknowledgment showed the same address the assessee had used in the revision petition, the delay-condonation application, and submissions before the Tribunal. The claim that the orders had been sent to an old or incorrect address was therefore found factually untenable. On that record, the Tribunal's conclusion that no proper explanation had been offered for the delay was supported, and no basis was found to interfere with the refusal to condone delay or the dismissal of the appeals as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate orders were duly served in accordance with Rule 176 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules and, consequently, whether the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal was rightly not condoned.

Analysis: The address reflected in the postal acknowledgment matched the address disclosed by the assessee in the revision petition, the delay-condonation application, and the submissions before the Tribunal. On that basis, the claim that the orders were sent to an old or incorrect address was found to be factually untenable. The Tribunal's finding that there was no proper explanation for the delay was supported by the record, and no ground was made out to interfere with that finding.

Conclusion: The service of the appellate orders was treated as effective, and the Tribunal was held justified in dismissing the appeals on limitation and declining condonation of delay.

---