1982 (2) TMI 303

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8-12-1974, but it could not be delivered to the petitioner because he was not present in his business premises. Attempts were made on the following days also to serve the notice, but he was not coming to the shop. On 6-1-1975 therefore the postal authorities redirected the article to his residence. There also the petitioner was not immediately available, with the result that actual service was effected only on 11-1-1975. 2. The main point raised by the petitioner against the confiscation proceedings that followed is that the notice should have been served on him within six months from the date of seizure, i.e. on or before 5-1-1975. The service in this case was only on 11-1-1975. 3. Section 79 of the Gold (Control) Act provides ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s to refuse to receive it when tendered. An interpretation likely to defeat the statutory intent cannot be accepted. 6. The position is made clear by Section 113 of the Act which provides that any notice "issued" under the Act shall be served by tendering it or sending it by read. post to the person concerned. The word used in Section 113 is "issue" and not "give". While Section 79 provides for giving notice, Section 113 provides for the manner of doing it. "Issuing" notice by sending it by Regd. post is a recognised manner of service. It can therefore easily be inferred that all that Parliament intended was that the appropriate authority should send a notice in writing by read. post before the expiry of the six months period. 7.&ems....