Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. Section 282 of the IT Act and the various Rules and order V CPC thus attempt to effect the service of a notice/summons on the person concerned by delivery or tender of the notice/summon to him in person, whether such notice/summon is sent by post or through process server.

15. Section 88 read with Section 4 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 raises a rebuttable presumption in respect of a message forwarded from a telegraph office to a person. But no such rebuttable presumption has been made in respect of other letters sent by post, registered or unregistered, in any other provision under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, however, lays down that if a letter has been duly posted with necessary particulars and address of the addressee thereupon then there may arise a rebuttable presumption to the effect that the letter was delivered or tendered to the addressee. This provision too creates a rebuttable presumption, Such rebuttal may come either from the endorsement of the postman himself or through the addressee. If the postman reports that the letter was delivered or tendered to the assessee, then there may arise rebuttable presumption in favour of the delivery or tender of the letter having been made on the addressee. The addressee himself may rebut the reports of the postman by filing some evidence to the contrary including an affidavit of himself or other persons. Similarly, a report regarding refusal by the addressee to take delivery of the letter may be rebutted by the addressee in the same way. But where the postman has returned the posted letter with the endorsement left', such endorsement itself suggest that delivery or tender of the letter could not be made on the addressee. The very endorsement itself, thus, would rebut the presumption created under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 in favour of the service of the posted letter on the addressee. This view finds support from the Calcutta High Court decisions in the cases of Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. (supra) and Surajmull Ghanshyamdas (supra). Since in the present case, the postman had returned the notices sent by the Tribunal to the applicant with the endorsement 'left', no effective service of the notice on the applicant took place. Once the service of the notice of hearing is held to have not been effected as per requirement of Rules 19 & 20 of the Rules, 1963, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal for the absence of the applicant. Where the service of notice was not found in accordance with the law it cannot be said that the assessee had been given a proper opportunity to put forward his case as required by Rule 20 of the Rules, 1963. The question, therefore, arises whether the application of the applicant dismissed for his absence may be restored for hearing. If so, under what provisions of law ?