TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (8) TMI 498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....42 of 1980 was allowed in toto while Appeal No. 520 of 1981 was partly allowed reducing the amount of tax. Appeal No. 906 of 1981 was also partly allowed reducing the amount of tax. Thus, an amount of Rs. 1,39,478.78 had to be refunded in view of the orders of the appellate authority. The petitioner adjusted the said amount towards the sales tax from April to July, 1982 and January, 1983. A notice dated September 1, 1982 was issued by the authorities to the petitioner to explain as how the assessee could adjust the said amount. Petitioner immediately filed the reply submitting that the appeals had been allowed. However, the impugned order dated March 3, 1983 was passed directing the petitioner-assessee to deposit the said amount for the reason that the respondent-authority took the view that the appeals had never been decided and the order purported to have been passed in the said three appeals of the assessee were forged and fabricated documents thus nullity. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner approached this Court. This Court dismissed the said writ petition observing that the petitioner raised the disputed questions of fact which could not be decided in writ jurisd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llate authority, the department has not made any attempt whatsoever to decide the same. There is a presumption under section 114, illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, 1872 that all actions of the State have been performed in accordance with law prescribed therein. 7.. A Constitution Bench of the honourable Supreme Court in Gopal Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1964 SC 370, held that there is a presumption when a statutory authority makes an order, that it has followed the prescribed procedure and such a presumption can only be rebutted by adducing appropriate evidence. However, the party, which makes an allegation that the act has not regularly been performed, the onus to prove lies upon him that the proper procedure has not been followed or the act has not been performed as was required under the law. 8.. In Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur v. Thakur Manmohan Dey AIR 1966 SC 1931, the honourable Supreme Court considered the scope of illustration (e) of section 114 of the Evidence Act and the question was: whether the Deputy Commissioner, who performed the particular function, had even been authorised to act. The court held that if an official act is proved to have been do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulsamy (2000) 9 SCC 549. 13.. Thus, it is clear that in law there is a presumption that official acts have regularly been performed and such presumption can be rebutted only by adducing evidence. A mere bald denial of such a performance is not sufficient to rebut the said presumption. In the instant case respondents have not produced any evidence on the basis of which such a presumption can be held to have stood rebutted. 14.. More so, certified copies of the public document are admissible in law in view of the provisions of sections 76 and 77 of the Evidence Act. Petitioner-assessee has placed the certified copy of the said orders of the appellate authority which have been issued one Shri Vir Pal Sharma. In pursuance of the order of this Court, said Vir Pal Sharma has filed affidavit wherein he stated in crystal clear words that appeals were heard and decided by Shri Onkar Singh, appellate authority. He had taken the dictation and typed these orders; dispatched certified copies and the said copies bear his signatures. 15.. Shri Onkar Singh, appellate authority has also filed his affidavit supporting the case of the petitioner. 16.. In Collector of Gorakhpur v. Ram Sund....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... documents have been filed by the petitioner showing that the orders of the appellate authority had been communicated to other authorities and it has been supported by the appellate authority himself, who has submitted that he had decided the appeals after giving full opportunity of arguments and hearing the departmental representative, Shri Mohd. Zafar. Allegations made by the department were not correct and the appeals were decided after the documents had been verified by the departmental representative as required under rule 68(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948. 23.. For the reasons best known to the department, said Shri Mohd. Jafar has not been asked to file affidavit by the department and no explanation has been furnished as under what circumstances he has not been examined. 24.. Thus, in view of illustration (g) of section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Labour Court had no option but to draw an adverse inference against the petitioner-employer. [Vide T.S. Murugesam Pillai v. M.D. Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi AIR 1917 PC 6, Hiralal v. Badkulal AIR 1953 SC 225, A. Raghavamma v. A. Chenchamma AIR 1964 SC 136, Union of India v. Mahadeolal Prabhu Dayal AIR 1965 SC 1755....