9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner can be deemed to have been tendered with the order under Section 129(3) on 03.02.2020. The fiction that is created does not leave any room for doubt and since the tendering of notice is by registered post with acknowledgement due, there is no scope for even assuming that the order was not served on the petitioner. In this context, this Court notices the pleading of the petitioner that he had received the notice for hearing scheduled on 24.01.2020. The copy of dispatch register showing that the order was dispatched on 28.01.2020 and the copy of acknowledgement card produced as Ext.R1(c), fortifies the above conclusion - the order under Section 129(3) of the Act was served on the petitioner on 03.02.2020. Having regard to the contenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad Railway Police Station, suspecting commission of a crime. Subsequently, the seized gold ornaments were produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate s Court, Palakkad. A petition was submitted by the first respondent under Section 129 of the Act on 18.09.219, seeking detention of the gold while the petition sought interim custody of the gold. By order dated 15.10.2019, the learned Magistrate directed the seized gold to be returned to the petitioner on furnishing a bank guarantee as security as contemplated under Section 129 of the Act. On the basis of a bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner initially on 14.11.2019 (later corrected and resubmitted a fresh guarantee on 06.02.2020) the goods were released to the petitioner. Thoug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber 2015 itself. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the order under Section 129(3) of the Act was issued on 25.01.2020 and a copy was sent by registered post to the petitioner on 28.01.2020 and was, in fact, received by the petitioner on 03.02.2020. It is further stated that the dispatch register maintained by the first respondent shows that the order was dispatched to the petitioner and the acknowledgement card evidenced receipt of the order by the petitioner. The copy of dispatch register and acknowledgement card were produced as Ext.R1(b) and Ext.R1(c). It was further pleaded in the statement as follows :- The respondent herein wishes to submit the facts of this matter in a concise manner. A person carrying 2767 grams of gold was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein informed the petitioner that the same ought to be corrected, in satisfaction of the conditions of interim custody granted by the JFCM Court. It was also pleaded that the respondent herein had issued and the petitioner had received the order in question. There is no irregularity in the proceedings undertaken by the respondent as well as the manner of communication of the final order of the adjudication. The petitioner has wrongly averred that the order was not received by him with malafides and nefarious intentions. The respondent is to understand from the averments, that the petitioner is relying upon the date of submission of corrected bank guarantee i.e. on 29.01.2020, to state that the order was not issued on 25.01.2020. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person or to a person regularly employed by him in connection with the business, or to any adult member of family residing with the taxable person; or (b). by registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgement due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised representative, if any, at his last known place of business or residence; or (b). by registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgement due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... every decision or order shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which it is tendered as provided in sub-section (1). When a statute enacts that something shall be deemed to have been done, the Court has a duty to give effect to that fiction. 8. As per the statutory prescription and going by the averments in the counter affidavit as well as the documents produced, it is evident that petitioner can be deemed to have been tendered with the order under Section 129(3) on 03.02.2020. The fiction that is created does not leave any room for doubt and since the tendering of notice is by registered post with acknowledgement due, there is no scope for even assuming that the order was not served on the petitioner. In this context, this Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
