2020 (4) TMI 336

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment Year 1993-94. The contention raised before this Court is that the Assessee was not served with the impugned assessment order in time and he applied for a certified copy and upon receipt of the same, he filed the appeal. However, the First Appellate Authority rejected the appeal as time barred with the following observation:- "6. Having refused to receive the order the Petitioner cannot rely on the decision reported in 122 STC 129. His case is clearly distinguishable from the above decision inasmuch as he has existed in the same premises and he has refused to receive the order. This is not a technical mistake as claimed by him. The Petitioner has refused to receive certain notices and the order. He has received one notice. It is not p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....one the delay of 137 days caused in filing the appeal. The arguments of the Appellant are that the order served by affixture is improper, other modes are not exhausted, he is doing business properly in his place of business, personal service is not properly, the service by affixture should not be considered as the real service of order, the service of served copy of the order should be considered for deciding the admission of his appeal petition. The arguments of the Additional State Representative are that the appeal rejected considering the service by affixture is proper as the appellant has to receive the notice and order. These have been examined. The appeal petition rejected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by way of dismissal r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....self has declared that he has done business in the same place of business filing returns and also paying tax before the Assessing Authority. From this, Appellate Authority has concluded that the Appellant has refused to receive the notice and also the order. Therefore, Assessing Authority has served the order by affixture on 25.2.97 is proper and the same treated as the date of service for deciding the limitation. Still then, complying with the principles of natural justice, Assessing Authority has sent a copy of the order by RPAD on 26.2.97. Even this is also not served for the refusal of the Appellant to receive the same. Therefore, the same was sent by postal authorities with endorsement that the same was not claimed by the Appellant. Fu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat, service is by RPAD is also made. For this also, the Appellant has also refused to receive the order. As admitted by the Appellant himself, he is doing business in the same place of business, the service of the order is made to his address and the said is refused by the Appellant. Therefore, the delay condonation considered from 25.2.97 is proper. The delay caused is 137 days in filing the appeal. The same could not be condoned under Section 31 and the same rejected by way of dismissing the appeal petition is proper. Further, Appellate Assistant Commissioner has also established the inapplicability of the decisions relied on by the Appellants for the facts involved in his case. Further, the Appellant has disclosed the taxable turnov....