2015 (8) TMI 1184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arred by limitation. 2. Brief facts, are that on 04.03.2006 a vehicle transporting M.S. Bars from U.P. to Punjab was intercepted by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Rajpura. The documents in the custody of driver were found not proper. Hence, the goods were detained under Section 51(6)(a) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 ('Act' for short). After affording an opportunity to the owner of the goods, the detaining officer being not satisfied referred the case to the Enquiry Officer, who after conducting the inquiry imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,51,687/- under Section 51(7)(b) of the Act upon the appellant, being owner of the goods. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commission....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Division, Patiala to know about the status of its appeal. When the above letters went un-responded, the appellant made personal inquiry and came to know on 04.04.2012 that its appeal has already been decided on 22.05.2009 and the order was sent to the address of its branch office at Rajpura. However, the same was never received. Hence, the delay of 907 days in filing the appeal was not intentional or deliberate, rather was on account of above facts and circumstances. 5. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal taking presumption of service upon the appellant under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the illustration (f) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, rejecting the above contention of the appellant, wrong....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d 22.05.2009 passed by him, dismissing the appeal. 8. In view of the above factual position, the learned Tribunal has wrongly drawn presumption of service upon the appellant under Section 27 of the General Clause Act, 1897 and the illustration (f) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, more particularly when it was incumbent upon the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (A), Patiala to send the copy of order dated 22.05.2009 to the appellant at its address given in the memorandum of appeal. 9. In 'The Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh, Patiala V/s Lalita Kapur' (P&H)(DB), 1970 CurLJ 523, a Division Bench of this Court has held that presumption under Section 2....