1974 (1) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Konchada Ramamurty Subudhi and Sons, P.O. Berhampur, District Ganjam (Khaspa Street)". The appeal was posted for hearing before the Tribunal to September 12, 1969, and notice of the hearing of the appeal was issued to the petitioner in the following address: "Konchada Ramamurty Subudhi & Sons, P.O. Berhampur, District Ganjam." The words "Khaspa Street" appearing after the name of the district were not added to that address. Despite this, the notice appears to have been received by the petitioner because on his behalf appearance was entered into and the matter was also heard by the Tribunal on September 19, 1969, in the presence of the petitioner's advocate. After the conclusion of the arguments the question of calling for a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....A.T. 1718/1966-67. Application filed by the appellant's member most respectfully sheweth: That the undersigned member of the appellant begs to submit the following for your favourable consideration. That a notice was served on the appellant which was delivered to another member of the appellant who is innocent and unware of the proceeding regarding these matters and who out of fear and afraiding nature refused the notice as he never had an occasion of receiving such notices from the said department. As the undersigned member is the only concerned person who is looking after these matters was out of town and the postman knew about the absence at the address and he delivered to another member who is residing at separate address w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t" after the name of the district. The question is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that there has been proper service of notice on the petitioner. In the counter filed on behalf of the department various instances have been given when notices addressed to the petitioner in the manner in which the address has now been found in the notice, annexure "E" had been duly delivered to the petitioner, although in all those notices (annexures "A", "C" and "D") the words "Khaspa Street" were not mentioned. It is clear from annexure "F", the petition filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, that the notice, annexure "E", was offered to some person in the petitioner's house-hol....