# M/S Safecon Lifescience Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 850
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-09
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 389 of 2023
- **Bench:** Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-safecon-lifescience-private-limited-v-additional-commissioner-grade-2-anr-53782
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

74 of the UPGST Act could be validly initiated
against the petitioner for alleged wrongful Input
Tax Credit (ITC), despite (i) actual movement of
goods, (ii) payment of tax through banking
channels, (iii) GSTR-1 / GSTR-3B reflection, and
(iv) absence of any finding of "fraud", "wilful
mis-statement" or "suppression of facts".

Headnotes
U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - S.
74
-
Initiation
of
proceedings
-
Requirement
of
fraud,
willful
misstatement or suppression of facts - Show
cause notice and adverse inference -
9 All. M/S Safecon Lifescience Private Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr.
851
Material evidence and due process -
Proceedings under S. 74 of the Act can
only be initiated if there is a case of fraud
or willful mis-statement or suppression of
fact to evade payment of tax and in
absence thereof proceedings under S. 74
of the Act cannot be initiated - S. 74(1)
cannot be invoked merely on account of
non-payment of GST without specific
element of fraud or willful mis-statement
or suppression of facts to evade tax - An
incorrect statement cannot be equated
with a willful misstatement; the latter
implies making of an incorrect statement
with the knowledge that the statement
was not correct.
Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Burden of Proof -
Genuine
Transactions
-
Once
actual
movement of goods as well as payment of
tax by the respondent authorities have
been proved by the petitioner to which no
rebuttal has been brought on record at
any stage, proceedings under S. 74 of the
Act
cannot
be
justified
Recipient
purchaser cannot be denied ITC merely on
the
ground
that
the
supplier
made
purchases from different firms who did
not deposit the tax, without recording a
finding that the petitioner was involved in
any irregularity.
Natural Justice - Reliance on Intelligence
Reports - Information sent by the Central
Intelligence Unit must be verified by the
authority before using the same against
the registered dealer - It is the duty of the
officers to verify facts with all angles
before being used against the registered
dealer - Report used against the petitioner
must be provided to the petitioner; failure
to provide material used against the
petitioner is violative of principles of
natural justice.
Held: Proceedings under S. 74 of the UPGST
Act require fraud, wilful misstatement, or
suppression of fact; cannot be initiated
merely
on
ground
of
cancellation
of
registration of supplier or non-reconciliation
in GSTR-2A unless supported by material
evidence - When movement of goods,
payment of tax, returns, and all compliance
documents are provided, and there is no
cogent rebuttal, adverse inference against
ITC not justified - Reports or information
from Intelligence Units must be verified by
authorities before acting - No material
provided to petitioner nor finding recorded
that supplier was involved in irregularity;
authority acted only on basis of unverified
information - Circular dated 13.12.2023
clarified proceedings under S. 74 can only be
for fraud/wilful misstatement or suppression
- Supreme Court in Continental Foundation
JV reiterated 'suppression' or 'misstatement'
must be wilful and accompanied by intent to
evade duty/tax - In present case, authorities
failed to record findings or provide evidence
of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression;
orders are
unsustainable and quashed.
(Paras 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
M/s
Khurja
Scrap
Trading
Company
vs.
Additional Commissioner Grade 2 (Appeal)
(2025: AHC 151783); Continental Foundation
Joint Venture Holding Nathpa, H.P. v. CCE,
Chandigarh-I [(2007) 10 SCC 337]

List of Acts
UPGST Act, 2017; CGST Act, 2017; Central
Excise Act, 1944

List of Keywords
Fraud; willful mis-statement; suppression of
fact; actual movement of goods; banking
channel; intelligence report; with closed eyes;
registration cancelled; input tax credit (ITC);
erroneously availed; material not provided;
proper officer

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Writ Tax No. 3

## Text

850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
into consideration, but no finding has return
on the report submitted by the Naib
Tehsildar on 18.8.1991 due to which the
orders are per se illegal.

7. On the other hand, learned Standing
Counsel has vehemently has opposed the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the petitioner and has submitted that the
report was taken into consideration and
thereafter, the orders were passed, therefore
the orders do not suffer from any infirmity
or illegality and the writ petition is liable to
be dismissed.

8. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties I have perused the material
available on record.

9. On perusal of the order of the
respondent no.2, it is evident that he has
taken notice of the report of the Naib
Tehsildar dated 18.8.1991, but no finding
has
return
nor
it
was
taken
into
consideration while passing the impugned
order and due to non-consideration of the
report, the impugned order suffers from
apparent illegality and is liable to be set
aside.

10. Revisional Authority has also
ignored that the report was submitted
which was taken into notice while
passing the order by the respondent no.2
but
that
to
was
not
taken
into
consideration while passing the order
impugned, therefore the order of the
Revisional Authority is per se illegal and
is liable to be set aside.

11. Considering in totalities of facts
and circumstances of the case, I am of the
considered opinion that due to non-taking
into consideration the report of Naib
Tehsildar dated 18.8.1991, the impugned
orders suffer from apparent illegality and is
liable to be quashed by this Court.

12. Accordingly, orders passed by the
respondent nos.1 and 2 dated 19.4.2005 and
9.2.2019 (Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ
petition) are hereby quashed. The writ
petition succeeds and is allowed.

14. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 850
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ Tax No. 389 of 2023

M/S Safecon Lifescience Private Limited
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Additional Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Suyash Agarwal, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether proceedings under S.
74 of the UPGST Act could be validly initiated
against the petitioner for alleged wrongful Input
Tax Credit (ITC), despite (i) actual movement of
goods, (ii) payment of tax through banking
channels, (iii) GSTR-1 / GSTR-3B reflection, and
(iv) absence of any finding of "fraud", "wilful
mis-statement" or "suppression of facts".

Headnotes
U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - S.
74
-
Initiation
of
proceedings
-
Requirement
of
fraud,
willful
misstatement or suppression of facts - Show
cause notice and adverse inference -
9 All. M/S Safecon Lifescience Private Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr.
851
Material evidence and due process -
Proceedings under S. 74 of the Act can
only be initiated if there is a case of fraud
or willful mis-statement or suppression of
fact to evade payment of tax and in
absence thereof proceedings under S. 74
of the Act cannot be initiated - S. 74(1)
cannot be invoked merely on account of
non-payment of GST without specific
element of fraud or willful mis-statement
or suppression of facts to evade tax - An
incorrect statement cannot be equated
with a willful misstatement; the latter
implies making of an incorrect statement
with the knowledge that the statement
was not correct.
Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Burden of Proof -
Genuine
Transactions
-
Once
actual
movement of goods as well as payment of
tax by the respondent authorities have
been proved by the petitioner to which no
rebuttal has been brought on record at
any stage, proceedings under S. 74 of the
Act
cannot
be
justified
Recipient
purchaser cannot be denied ITC merely on
the
ground
that
the
supplier
made
purchases from different firms who did
not deposit the tax, without recording a
finding that the petitioner was involved in
any irregularity.
Natural Justice - Reliance on Intelligence
Reports - Information sent by the Central
Intelligence Unit must be verified by the
authority before using the same against
the registered dealer - It is the duty of the
officers to verify facts with all angles
before being used against the registered
dealer - Report used against the petitioner
must be provided to the petitioner; failure
to provide material used against the
petitioner is violative of principles of
natural justice.
Held: Proceedings under S. 74 of the UPGST
Act require fraud, wilful misstatement, or
suppression of fact; cannot be initiated
merely
on
ground
of
cancellation
of
registration of supplier or non-reconciliation
in GSTR-2A unless supported by material
evidence - When movement of goods,
payment of tax, returns, and all compliance
documents are provided, and there is no
cogent rebuttal, adverse inference against
ITC not justified - Reports or information
from Intelligence Units must be verified by
authorities before acting - No material
provided to petitioner nor finding recorded
that supplier was involved in irregularity;
authority acted only on basis of unverified
information - Circular dated 13.12.2023
clarified proceedings under S. 74 can only be
for fraud/wilful misstatement or suppression
- Supreme Court in Continental Foundation
JV reiterated 'suppression' or 'misstatement'
must be wilful and accompanied by intent to
evade duty/tax - In present case, authorities
failed to record findings or provide evidence
of fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression;
orders are
unsustainable and quashed.
(Paras 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
M/s
Khurja
Scrap
Trading
Company
vs.
Additional Commissioner Grade 2 (Appeal)
(2025: AHC 151783); Continental Foundation
Joint Venture Holding Nathpa, H.P. v. CCE,
Chandigarh-I [(2007) 10 SCC 337]

List of Acts
UPGST Act, 2017; CGST Act, 2017; Central
Excise Act, 1944

List of Keywords
Fraud; willful mis-statement; suppression of
fact; actual movement of goods; banking
channel; intelligence report; with closed eyes;
registration cancelled; input tax credit (ITC);
erroneously availed; material not provided;
proper officer

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Writ Tax No. 389 of 2023, challenging orders:
20.12.2022 - Additional Commissioner Grade-2
(Appeal)-II, State Tax, Agra
12.1.2022 - Deputy Commissioner, Commercial
Tax, Agra

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Sri R.R. Agarwal (Senior Counsel), Sri Suyash
Agarwal
Advs. for the Respondents:
C.S.C. (Chief Standing Counsel) / Learned ACSC

(Delivered by Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)
852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Sri R.R.Agarwal, learned
senior counsel assisted by Sri Suyash
Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned ACSC.

2. Present writ petition has been filed
seeking
quashing
the
order
dated
20.12.2022 passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal)- II State
Tax, Agra, respondent no.1 as well as the
order dated 12.1.2022 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax,
Agra, respondent no.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is engaged in
trading and manufacturing business, mainly
of all kinds of medicines/ pharma products
on wholesale basis. He further submits that
the petitioner purchased medicines/ pharma
products from M/s Unimax Pharma Chem,
Purana Taluka Bhiwandi, Thane and at the
time of supply it was in existence and duly
registered with the GST department as well
as Drug License Holder. He further submits
that the transaction of purchases made by
the petitioner from the Maharashtra Party
for the tax period April, 2021 which was
against the Tax Invoice dated 30.4.2021
and E-way bill and transport bilty of M/s
Vinay Road Lines Pvt. Ltd. He further
submits that the whole payments of
purchases were made through banking
channel and the supplier also submitted his
GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B within the time on
GST Portal after making due tax on the
turnover made by the supplier.

4. Learned senior counsel for the
petitioner
further
submits
that
the
respondent no.2 issued show cause notice
under section 74 of the UPGST Act on the
ground that the petitioner has claimed ITC
through GSTR-3B for the tax period April,
2021 on the purchase made from M/s
Unimax Pharma Chem which has itself got
its registration cancelled as such the
petitioner has incorrectly claim ITC. He
further submits that the petitioner submitted
a detailed reply to the show cause notice
which has been rejected by the respondent
no. 2 on the ground that the recipient
purchaser can claim the ITC only when the
supplier has deposited the collected tax
with the department as per Section 16(2)(c)
of the Act. He further submitted that the
respondent no. 2 has recorded incorrect
finding that the petitioner has not made
actual purchases and there was a difference
in the bill reflected in GSTR-2A and the
bill disclosed by the petitioner.

5. Learned senior counsel further
submits that feeling aggrieved by the order
passed by the respondent no.2 the petitioner
preferred an appeal which has also been
dismissed on 20.11.2022 by the respondent
no.2 on the ground that the supplier M/s
Unimax Pharma Chem in the month of
March,
2021
made
purchases
from
different firms who did not deposit the tax,
therefore, it claimed forged ITC He further
submits that the appellate authority has
erred in holding that the purchases made by
the supplier from the different firms who
did not deposit tax on sales made by them
to the M/s Unimax Pharma Chem as such
the petitioner cannot claim ITC on the
supply made by M/s Unimax Pharma
Chem.
He
further
submits
that
the
petitioner has made the payment of Tax as
per tax invoices to the supplier and the
supplier has deposited the tax as reflected
in
GSTR-3B,
therefore,
no
adverse
inference can be drawn by making RITC to
the ITC claimed by the petitioner.

6. Learned senior counsel further
submits that specific arguments were raised
before the authority which was noticed but
9 All. M/S Safecon Lifescience Private Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr.
853
no finding has been recorded. He further
submits that all materials were produced
before the authority and are available
before the first appellate authority and the
appellate authority as well, have been filed
before this Court. He further submits that
the
movement
of
goods
were
duly
supported by the purchase invoice, selling
dealer tax invoice, e-way bill, purchase
order, transport bilty and the payments
were made through banking channel. He
further submits that not only this the GSTR
return was filed and supplies were done
which is also reflected in GSTR-1A as well
as in GSTR-2A. Further the same has also
been reflected in GSTR-3B on the portal of
the petitioner. He further submits that until
and unless the tax is paid, GSTR-3B will
not reflect.

7. He further submits that a circular
has been issued on 13.12.2023 which
specifically provides that under section 74
of the CGST Act proceedings can only be
initiated if there is a case of fraud or willful
mis-statement or suppression of fact to
evade payment of tax and in absence
thereof proceedings under section 74 of the
Act cannot be initiated. In support of his
arguments he has relied upon a judgment of
this Court in Writ Tax No. 743 of 2023 M/s
Khurja
Scrap
Trading
Company
vs.
Additional
Commissioner
Grade
2
(Appeal) and another (2025: AHC 151783).

8. Per contra, learned ACSC supports
the impugned order. He further submits that
supplying dealer of the petitioner M/s
Unimax
Pharma
Chem
has
shown
purchases from the firm whose registration
has been cancelled much before, therefore,
once supplying dealer purchase is doubted
and it could not be proved on record, the
benefit of ITC cannot be accorded to the
petitioner. Hence the proceeding has rightly
been initiated against the petitioner.

9. After hearing the learned counsel
for the parties the Court has perused the
record.

10. Record shows that notice under
section 74 of the Act was issued to the
petitioner
on
the
basis
of
some
information being received from the
office of Pr. Chief Commissioner, Central
Intelligence Unit, Central Excise &
Central Tax Vadodara Zone that M/s
Unimax Pharma Chem from whom
purchases have been made by the
petitioner has wrongly been shown and
on the said premise proceedings were
initiated.

11. The record further shows the
petitioner submitted its specific reply on all
points bringing on record the material of
actual movement of goods, payment of tax
through banking channel as well as filing of
return which was reflected in GSTR-3B of
both - petitioner and supplier but no
weightage was given on order under
section 74 of the Act was passed on
13.10.2021. Specifically taking all grounds
in appeal which were noticed in the
impugned order but neither any weightage
was given nor any material was brought to
rebut the same while rejected the appal. The
petitioner has specifically brought on record
all materials with regard to movement of
goods, payment through banking channel.
Further returns filed by the petitioner and the
supplier were brought on record and GSTR3B was also reflected on the portal showing
payment of tax. This vital materials have
neither been disbelieved/ reversed nor any
cogent material rebutting the same have been
brought on record.
854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. Once actual movement of goods as
well as payment of tax by the respondent
authorities have been proved by the
petitioner to which no rebuttal has been
brought on record at any stage, proceedings
under section 74 of the Act cannot be
justified.

13. The order of the first appellate
authority has been passed only on the basis
of the information sent by office of the Pr.
Chief Commissioner, Central Intelligence
Unit, Central Excise & Central Tax
Vadodara Zone with closed eyes. The
information sent by the Central Intelligence
Unit must be verified by the authority
before using the same against the registered
dealer.

14. The record shows that the
allegations were made against M/s Unimax
Pharma Chem from whom purchases were
made, that its registration was cancelled
earlier. However, no finding has been
recorded that M/s Unimax Pharma Chem,
who sold the goods in question to the
petitioner was involved in any irregularity.
The total quantity purchased by M/s Unimax
Pharma Chem was sold to the petitioner and
no finding has been recorded that the alleged
parties which supplied goods to M/s Unimax
was the only sale made to it. The record does
not confirms that M/s Unimax Pharma Chem
made sale only to the petitioner. It is the duty
of the officers to verify facts with all angles
before being used against the registered
dealer. Record further shows that the report
used against the petitioner has neither been
provided to the petitioner nor material used
against the petitioner was ever provided
which ought to be provided to the petitioner.

15. GST regime has been brought by
the Central Government for ease of
business in the country but the revenue
officers are bend upon to act against the
very theme/ intend of it. When it was
noticed by the Government that under the
garb of Section 74 of the Act various
dealers are being harassed, issued a circular
dated 13.12.2023 where it has specifically
been stated that proceedings under section
74 of the Act can be initiated if there is a
fraud
or
willful
mis-statement
or
suppression of fact to evade payment of tax
and not otherwise.

16. This Court had an occasion to
consider such facts which is identical to the
facts of the present case in M/s Khurja
Scrap Trading Company (supra). Relevant
paragraph nos. 11,12 and 13 of the said
judgment is quoted below:

"11. Further, paragraph nos. 3.2
& 3.3 of the circular dated 13.12.2023 read
as under:-

3.2 In this regard, section 74 (1)
of CGST Act reads as follows:

(1) Where it appears to the proper
officer that any tax has not been paid or
short paid or erroneously refunded or
where input tax credit has been wrongly
availed or utilized by reason of fraud, or
any wilful-misstatement or suppression of
facts to evade tax.

3.3. From the perusal of wording
of section 74(1) of CGST Act, it is evident
that section 74(1) can be invoked only in
cases where there is a fraud or wilful mis-
statement or suppression of facts to evade
tax on the part of the said taxpayer. Section
74(1) cannot be invoked merely on account
of non-payment of GST without specific
element of fraud or wilful mis-statement or
suppression
of
facts
to
evade
tax.
Therefore, only in the cases where the
investigation indicates that there is material
evidence of fraud or wilful mis-statement
or suppression of fact to evade tax on the
9 All. M/S Safecon Lifescience Private Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 & Anr.
855
part of the taxpayer, provisions of section
74(1) of CGST Act may be invoked for
issuance of show cause notice, and such
evidence should also be made a part of the
show cause notice. "

12. On perusal of the aforesaid
paragraphs, it is apparent that proceedings
under section 74 can only be invoked when
there is a fraud, wilfull mis-statement or
suppression of fact to evade tax on the part
of the taxpayer. Since the benefit of this
circular has been given in view of the
judgement of the Apex Court in Suraj
Impex (India) Private Limited (supra) and
the judgement of this Court in S/s Agrawal
Rolling Mills (supra), strict compliance of
the circular is required by the State
authorities. The record shows that no
finding has been recorded at any stage that
there is a fraud or willful mis-statement or
suppression of fact to evade payment of
tax.

13. The record further shows that
at the time when the transaction took place,
the selling dealer, i.e., M/s Unique Trading
Company, was duly registered. The record
further shows that the selling dealer has
duly uploaded GSTR - 1/1FF and GSTR 3B. Once, at the time of when transaction
took
place,
the
selling
dealer
was
registered, no adverse view should have
been taken against the petitioner as held by
this Court in Solvi Enterprises (supra) and
R.T. Infotech (supra). "

17. Record shows that neither any
finding with regard to fraud has been
noticed nor mis-statement nor suppression
of fact has been recorded at any stage.

18. Section 11-A of the of the Central
Excise Act, 1944 is having analogous
provision to Section 74 of the UPGST Act.
The Apex Court in the case of Continental
Foundation Joint Venture Holding, Nathpa,
H.P. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Chandigarh-I [(2007) 10 SCC 337] had an
occasion
to
consider
the
expression
'suppression', 'wilful misstatement' and has
held as under:

11. We are not really concerned
with the other issues as according to us on
the challenge to the extended period of
limitation ground alone the appellants are
bound to succeed. Section 11A of the Act
postulates
suppression
and,
therefore,
involves in essence mens rea.

12. The expression 'suppression"
has been used in the proviso to Section 11A
of the Act accompanied by very strong
words as 'fraud' or "collusion" and,
therefore, has to be construed strictly. Mere
omission to give correct information is not
suppression of facts unless it was deliberate
to stop the payment of duty. Suppression
means failure to disclose full information
with the intent to evade payment of duty.
When the facts are known to both the
parties, omission by one party to do what
he might have done would not render it
suppression. When the Revenue invokes
the extended period of limitation under
Section 11-A the burden is cast upon it to
prove suppression of fact. An incorrect
statement cannot be equated with a willful
misstatement. The latter implies making of
an incorrect statement with the knowledge
that the statement was not correct.

13. Factual position goes to show
the Revenue relied on the circular dated
23.5.1997 and dated 19.12.1997. The
circular dated 6.1.1998 is the one on which
appellant places reliance. Undisputedly,
CEGAT in Continental Foundation Joint
Venture case (supra) was held to be not
correct in a subsequent larger Bench
judgment. It is, therefore, clear that there
was scope for entertaining doubt about the
view to be taken. The Tribunal apparently
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has not considered these aspects correctly.
Contrary to the factual position, the
CEGAT has held that no plea was taken
about there being no intention to evade
payment of duty as the same was to be
reimbursed by the buyer. In fact such a plea
was clearly taken. The factual scenario
clearly goes to show that there was scope
for entertaining doubt, and taking a
particular stand which rules out application
of Section 11A of the Act.

14. As far as fraud and collusion
are concerned, it is evident that the intent to
evade duty is built into these very words. So
far as mis-statement or suppression of facts
are concerned, they are clearly qualified by
the word 'wilful', preceding the words "misstatement or suppression of facts" which
means with intent to evade duty. The next set
of words 'contravention of any of the
provisions of this Act or Rules' are again
qualified by the immediately following words
'with intent to evade payment of duty.'
Therefore, there cannot be suppression or
mis-statement of fact, which is not wilful and
yet constitute a permissible ground for the
purpose of the proviso to Section 11A. Misstatement of fact must be wilful.

19. The Apex Court has clearly stated
that incorrect statement, unless made with
the knowledge that it was not correct,
would will not be a ground of wilful
misstatement
or
suppression
and
no
inference can be drawn if full information
has been disclosed without intent to evade
payment of tax.

20. In the case in hand the authorities
have neither recorded any findings of fraud
nor wilful misstatement nor suppression of
fact to evade payment of tax, therefore, the
proceedings under section 74 of the Act out
not to have been initiated against the
petitioner.

In view of the above discussions
as well as judgment of the Apex Court and
this Court, the impugned order dated
20.12.2022 passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal)- II State
Tax, Agra, respondent no.1 as well as the
order dated 12.1.2022 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax,
Agra, respondent no.2 cannot be sustained
and are hereby quashed.

14. The writ petition succeeds and is
allowed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 856
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 436 of 2012

Mahesh Gautam ...Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Income Tax
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rahul Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Manu Ghildiyal

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the validity of the service
of notice under S. 148 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961, specifically whether the notice
sent
via
speed
post,
without
acknowledgement, can be presumed served
under S. 27 of the General Clauses Act,
1897, and whether the failure to affix the
notice at the last known address when the
appellant was not traceable vitiates the
reassessment proceedings.