Non-service of demand orders and prolonged departmental inaction...

Non-service of demand orders and prolonged departmental inaction can negate a valid assumption that an assessee was duly served and in default under section 220(1). The Court found the Department's claim of service by e-mail unpersuasive because the record did not satisfactorily establish service, and the long lapse of time was inconsistent with the demands having remained uncontested if they had truly been received. The action under section 220 was quashed, while the assessee was left free to seek copies of the relevant documents and pursue objections, rectification or appeal, and the Department was permitted to proceed afresh in accordance with law.