9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thing shall be deemed to have been done, the Court has a duty to give effect to that fiction. 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 - it is found that the order under Section 129(3) of the Act was served on the petitioner on 03.02.2020. Since the petitioner s right to pursue an appeal cannot be curtailed solely on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 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. Though in the meantime, an adjudication was held on 24.01.2020, pursuant to notice, petitioner alleges that no orders thereon were communicated to the petitioner. 3. It is alleged that in the meantime, petitioner was served with Ext.P8 notice dated 22.09.2021 invoking the bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner. On getting intimation of the invocation of bank gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atched 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 intercepted by the Railway Police while he was travelling from Chennai to Thrissur on 29.08.2019 at 5.45 a.m. Upon interception, the person was asked to produce documents accompanying the gold. The person could not produce any documents and also could not give any explanation or detail as to where he was taking the gold and for what purpose. Suspecting smuggling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommunication 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 is submitted that the bank guarantee was submitted by the petitioner as early as on 14.11.2019 and all that happened on 29.01.2020 is submission of the corrected bank guarantee as communicated by the respondent herein to the petitioner with regard to submitting of the corrected bank guarantee. Further, the date of submission of the corrected bank guarantee and iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, if any, at his last known place of business or residence; or (c). by sending a communication to his e-mail address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time; or (d). by making it available on the common portal; or (e). by publication in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the taxable person or the person to whom it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duced, 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 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. Hence I find that the order under Section 129(3) of the Act was served on the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
