| 8/2/2012 |
HOME
FSS
Downloads
|
| Board of Special Commissioners - Cases |
| Case No. 6/65 |
Decided: 19 June, 1965 |
|
|
Notification of Commissioner's decision; Board considers professional office to be "business address"; the postal authorities are the agents of the Commissioner to deliver the notice - article 51, Income Tax Act, now article 29, Income Tax Management Act
|
Taxpayer submitted his appeal a day late and contested the Commissioner's plea that it was, therefore, null and void.
It resulted that the taxpayer was an architect by profession and the notice of refusal of his objection had been sent to him at his professional office. As the postman did not find anybody at the office, the taxpayer was asked to call at the post office where the refusal was consigned to him.
He countered the Commissioner's plea of nullity by claiming that delivery of the notice of refusal had not been made according to law since, as a professional, he was not carrying on a business and could not, therefore, have a business address.
The Board held that "business" in this context was not a source of income but only a description of the place where a person carried on his income-earning activities. In any case delivery had actually been made personally when the postmaster consigned to him the notice of refusal. It made no difference that the notice had been originally sent by registered post. Moreover the law stipulated that the notice be "sent" to the taxpayer and not specifically "delivered".
It had been held in English Courts that "when a notice is sent by post, the postal authorities are only the agents of the sender to deliver the notice. The position is the same as if the sender had sent a messenger abroad to serve the notice" and "service having de facto been effected, all the legal consequences follow."
An appeal was entered before the Court from this decision (see case no. 62).
|
|
|
|
|