TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was barred by limitation on the footing that the order in original had been duly served on the appellant, and whether the dismissal of the appeal on limitation could be sustained.
Analysis: The appeal period under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 runs from the date of communication of the order, with a limited power of condonation. The controversy turned on whether the order in original had been served at the appellant's correct and known address. The record showed that the appellant had another registered address and there was no reliable material to establish that the show cause notice or the order in original had been dispatched to or served at the correct registered premises. The presumption of service arising from postal dispatch is rebuttable, and in the absence of proof of service at the proper address, limitation could not be computed against the appellant from the earlier date. The rejection of the appeal as time-barred was therefore not justified.
Conclusion: The appeal was not barred by limitation, and the dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable. The matter required remand for decision on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: For computing limitation under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, valid communication of the order to the assessee at the correct address must be established; a rebuttable presumption of service cannot override the absence of proof of proper service.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
