9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim of non-receipt of notice of hearing by the assessee company. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a miscellaneous application filed by the assessee against an ex parte order of the Tribunal, seeking rehearing on the grounds of not receiving the notice of hearing. The Tribunal had directed the notice to be served on the assessee through the Departmental Representative (D.R.) on 12-9-1995, with the hearing scheduled for 6-12-1995. However, the D.R. reported that the notice was served on 28-11-1995. The Tribunal proceeded ex parte on 6-12-1995 as there was no representation from the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on 15-12-1995. The order was served on the assessee on 13-1-1996. Subsequently, the assessee applied for certified copies of various documents and filed a Misc. Application on 26-11-1996, stating non-receipt of the notice and lack of proper acknowledgment. The deponent of the affidavit denied receiving the notice and raised concerns about the lack of company seal and rubber stamp on the acknowledgment slip. Despite the director's repeated denial of receiving the notice, the Tribunal rejected the claim based on the evidence on record, including matching signatures on acknowledgment slips for the notice and order. The Tribunal found the company's denial inconsistent with the established facts and dismissed the miscellaneous application on 9-1-1997. This judgment primarily revolves around the issue of the assessee company's claim of not receiving the notice of hearing. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including the acknowledgment slips for the notice and order, both signed by the same person without the company's rubber stamp. Despite the director's denial, the Tribunal found the denial unsubstantiated given the clear evidence on record. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the established facts, including the matching signatures, in rejecting the claim of non-receipt of the notice. The decision highlights the significance of documentary evidence and consistency in claims during legal proceedings. The Tribunal's analysis underscores the need for concrete proof to support assertions in legal matters, especially regarding crucial aspects such as receipt of notices in judicial proceedings. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the miscellaneous application was based on the lack of substantiated evidence supporting the claim of non-receipt of the notice of hearing by the assessee company. The judgment underscores the importance of concrete proof and consistency in claims during legal proceedings. Despite the director's denial, the Tribunal relied on the established facts, including matching signatures on acknowledgment slips, to reject the claim. This case serves as a reminder of the critical role of documentary evidence and the need for factual consistency in legal disputes, particularly concerning essential aspects like notice receipt in judicial processes.
|
