Lack of proof of service justifies non-filing of appeal under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the notice dated 7. 2004, which is a notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,06,486/- as additional stamp duty, which was fixed under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, in respect of Document No.491/1996, on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Arakkonam.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not served with any order passed under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 fixing the additional stamp duty as Rs.1,06,486/-. It is stated in the notice that the notice is issued under the Revenue Recovery Act based on the order passed under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

3. When such a specific plea is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner about the non service of the order passed under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the learned Government Advocate was directed to take notice on behalf of the respondents and directed to get instructions. Today, the learned Government Advocate produced the instructions given by the first respondent, wherein it is stated that the said notice was issued under the Revenue Recovery Act based on the order passed by the first respondent dated 16. 2002 and insofar as the service of the order, it is stated that the order has been despatched on 16. 2002 to the petitioner giving a direction to the petitioner to file appeal within 60 days to the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai as per Rule9 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, if the petitioner is aggrieved. The copy of the order passed on 16. 2002 is also produced before me, wherein there is a rubber stamp stating that "the order was despatched on 16. 2002". There is neither acknowledgment of the receipt of the order dated 16. 2002 is mentioned, nor any postal acknowledgment is produced before me. Rule 15 deals with service of orders to the parties.

"15. Manner of service of notice and orders to the parties.-Any notice under rule 4 or order under rule 4 or 7 shall be served in the following manner, namely:-

.(a) in the case of any company, society or association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, be served-

.(i) on the secretary or any director or other principal officer of the company, society or association of individuals, as the case may be; or

(ii) by leaving it or sending it by registered post acknowledgment due addressed to the company, society or association of individuals as the case may be at the registered office, or if there is no registered office, then at the place where the company, society or association of individuals as the case may be, carries on business.

.(b) in the case of any firm, be served-

.(i) upon any one or more of the partners; or

.(ii) at the principal place at which the partnership business is carried on, upon any person having control or management of the partnership business at the time of service.

.(c) in the case of a family, be served upon the person in management of such family or of the property of such family, in the manner specified in clause (d).

.(d) in the case of an individual person, be served-

.(i) by delivering or tendering the notice or order to the person concerned or his Counsel or authorised agent; or

.(ii) by delivering or tendering the notice or order to some adult member of the family; or

(iii) by sending the notice or order to the person concerned by registered post acknowledgment due; or

(iv) if none of the aforesaid modes of service is practicable, by affixing the notice or order in some conspicuous part of the last known place of residence or business of the person concerned."

4. In view of the said Rule, service of the order, has to be proved. The respondents are having only a proof of sending the order dated 16. 2002 and not having the proof of receiving the order by the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner was just