TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal was presented on February 2, 2001, with a delay of nearly 20 years and hence contended that the appeal should be dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant sought time to peruse the records of the Competent Authority. He contended that the order of the Competent Authority was not received by the appellant and that the Competent Authority refused to furnish a copy of the order and that the appellant is in possession of the property and that the Central Government is trying to auction the property and to dispossess him, and that status quo may be directed to be maintained. On a perusal of the records of the Competent Authority, we were prima facie, satisfied that the order was served on the appellant by affixture on May 9, 1980, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st on March 25, 1980, and that the appellant did not receive the same and it was returned to the office of the Competent Authority by the postal authorities with a remark "the addressee hesitates to have R. L. so it is returned to the Centre" and that all efforts to serve the order on the appellant proved futile and hence the order was served on the appellant by affixture on May 9, 1980, and hence the period of limitation started to run from that date and the appeal is barred by limitation as there is a delay of two decades in presenting the appeal. We have examined the records and the note file of the Competent Authority and the notings relating to dispatch of the order by registered post as well as the service by affixture and learned c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otices and orders is prescribed by section 22 of the SAFEMA, which is set out hereunder : "22. Service of notices and orders.-Any notice or order issued or made under this Act shall be served (a) by tendering the notice or order or sending it by registered post to the person for whom it is intended or to his agent ; (b) if the notice or order cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (a), by affixing it on a conspicuous place in the property in relation to which the notice or order is issued or made, or on some conspicuous part of the premises in which the person for whom it is intended is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain." Section 22 prescribes the entire procedure that has to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the proceedings before the Competent Authority and the Tribunal. It was contended by learned counsel that, inasmuch as the order of the Income-tax Officer, directed service of the order under Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, the procedure prescribed by Order 5 should have been followed. The contention has no substance in view of the specific provisions of section 22 of the Act, which is applicable to the proceedings under the SAFEMA. Even though the concerned official indicated in his order that service should be effected under Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is not binding, as the procedure prescribed under section 22 of the Act has to be followed. The next submission of learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the Income-tax Officer. We have no doubt in our minds that the order was served by affixture as required by section 22(b). The next submission of learned counsel that in the absence of the returned postal cover, it should be held that no effort was made to send the order to the appellant by registered post as required by section 22(b) of the Act. Under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there is a presumption that official acts are done in accordance with the rules and regulations governing them. The court is entitled to presume that official acts are regularly performed and every public servant discharged his duties in accordance with the provisions of law. The ordinary presumption of law is that every public servant perf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated May 9, 1980, below the endorsement of the Competent Authority, which was obviously done with a view to secure the said letter, which might otherwise been misplaced. The submission of learned counsel that the witnesses who were present at the time of affixture of the order should have been literate persons, is equally without any force. There is no requirement of law that only literate persons should be witnesses. On a perusal of the records relating to tendering of the order by registered post and the service of the order by affixture, we are satisfied that the order is served on the appellant by affixture as required by law on May 9, 1980, and the appeal is hopelessly barred by limitation, as it was presented only on February 2, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
