9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (3) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were dismissed as barred by limitation by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax, by an order dated 25th July, 1967. The petitioner prays for certiorari. It appears that copies of the assessment orders were sent by post under registered cover by the Sales Tax Officer. They were delivered to one R.M. Saxena. The petitioner says that R.M. Saxena is merely a relation of the managing partner but is neither a member of the staff nor has anything to do with the business of the petitioner. He alleges that R.M. Saxena did not hand over the registered envelope and the petitioner came to know of the assessment orders only on 13th October, 1966, when he received certified copies of the assessment orders. The Assistant Commissioner (Judici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... document to be served by post, whether the expression 'serve' or either of the expressions 'give' or 'send' or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post." The copies of the orders were sent under a registered envelope addressed to the petitioner. That is not denied. Admittedly, the registered envelope was delivered to R.M. Saxena on 22nd February, 1966. We may take it that that was the date by which the registered envelope would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther pointed out that in Gresham House Estate Co. v. Rossa Grande Gold Mining Co.[1870] W.N. 119. , the Court had held that, "............ if a letter properly directed, containing a notice to quit, is proved to have been put into the post office, it is presumed that the letter reached its destination at the proper time according to the regular course of business of the post office, and was received by the person to whom it was addressed. That presumption would appear to their Lordships to apply with still greater force to letters which the sender has taken the precaution to register, and is not rebutted but strengthened by the fact that a receipt for the letter is produced signed on behalf of the addressee by some person other than the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
