9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pre-assessment notice, which was served on the petitioner. The petitioner filed his objection. Thereafter, the order of assessment was passed on April 19, 2000. It was sent by registered post in the name of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that such order of assessment had not been served on him and subsequently learning about the steps taken by the department for realisation of the amount, he applied for a certified copy of the order and soon thereafter filed appeal. The appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that such appeal had not been presented within the prescribed period of limitation. Such order of the appellate authority was challenged before the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal. The Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngthened in the present case by the intimation given by the postal authorities regarding delivery of the letter to the addressee. As against such materials, merely on the basis of the affidavit filed by the representative (a registered practitioner) before the appellate authority, it cannot be held that the presumption regarding service, which had been strengthened by the subsequent letter of the Postal Department, had been in any way rebutted. It is to be noticed that the affidavit filed before the appellate authority was by a registered practitioner and not by the petitioner himself. Moreover, the appellate authority and the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal have come to a particular factual conclusion. It is not within the domain of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of delay up to a particular period amounts to exclusion of the applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act. 5.. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that even assuming that the appeal filed was barred by limitation and the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay, original order of assessment is apparently bad and should be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. 6.. Learned counsel for the department has resisted such submission on the ground that since the petitioner had failed to avail of the alternative remedy available under the statute, the original order of assessment cannot be challenged in this writ petition. We are not inclined to accept such pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
