https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111927 The statutory presumption of service under section 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was rebuttable, and once the allottee denied receipt of the registered demand notice, the burden shifted to the authority to prove actual service by cogent evidence. No further material was produced, so service was not proved and the automatic cancellation contemplated by the allotment scheme could not operate. The restoration of the allotment was therefore not a fresh allotment but a continuation of the original allotment, and the authority could not demand a revised amount on that basis. The finding on unfair trade practice was also sustained, and relief remained with the allottee. en-us Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Apr 2025 10:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111927 The statutory presumption of service under section 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was rebuttable, and once the allottee denied receipt of the registered demand notice, the burden shifted to the authority to prove actual service by cogent evidence. No further material was produced, so service was not proved and the automatic cancellation contemplated by the allotment scheme could not operate. The restoration of the allotment was therefore not a fresh allotment but a continuation of the original allotment, and the authority could not demand a revised amount on that basis. The finding on unfair trade practice was also sustained, and relief remained with the allottee. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111927