TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1956 (1) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3rd March, 1948, to 13th April, 1949, and 14th April, 1949, to 6th November, 1949. During the first period the transactions of the applicants' firm were being conducted by one Gulbai. She transferred the said firm to one Ratanshi Sojpal on 3rd March, 1948. During the second period, Ratanshi Sojpal did not get himself registered as a dealer, and therefore obtained no registration certificate. On 6t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed at Harganga Mahal, Khodadad Circle, Bombay 14, and an endorsement was made thereon that the letter would be delivered by the Sales Tax Inspector at 56, Portuguese Church, Dadar, which appears to be the address of Ratanshi Sojpal. It was, however, received by Shri P.C. Mehta, one of the present partners of the firm. The said reminder called upon the firm to attend with their accounts on 28th Jan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... letter, the Sales Tax Officer, in his letter dated 25th January, 1953, stated that as the transferee of Sojpal, they were liable to pay the sales tax dues under sub-section (1) of section 18 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, and demand- ed payment of the same. 2.. It was contended by Shri D.V. Patel for the applicants that the notice dated 2nd December, 1949, was never received by his clients and tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....course of post." This provision substantially reproduces the provisions of section 28 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904. In this case the notice was not sent by registered post but by the ordinary post. As the applicants deny having received the notice, the presumption indicated by the words "shall be deemed to have been effected " in the said provision cannot, in our opinion, arise in this ....