Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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: Whether service of the adjudication order on the assessee's authorised representative constituted valid service for computing limitation, and whether the subsequent appeal was time-barred.
Analysis: The service provision requires delivery of the order to the person for whom it is intended or to his authorised agent. The authorisation on record was confined to specific pre-adjudication acts and did not confer authority to receive the adjudication order. A legal representative dealing with the matter before the adjudicating authority was not treated as equivalent to an authorised agent for service of the final order. The date on which the assessee actually received the order copy was therefore taken as the date of communication, and the appeal filed thereafter was within the prescribed limitation period.
Conclusion: Service on the authorised representative was not valid service for limitation purposes. The appeal was not time-barred, and the impugned order was set aside with remand for fresh adjudication on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: For limitation, service of an adjudication order is valid only when made on the person intended or an authorised agent expressly empowered to receive it; service on a representative without such authority does not start the limitation period.