Mr. Rachit shifted house without updating his address with the Income Tax Department. A show-cause notice (15 days to reply) was sent by registered…

Provisions: Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that where any legislation authorises or requires a document to be served by post, service is deemed to be effected unless a different intention appears by: (i) properly addressing, (ii) pre-paying, and (iii) posting the document by registered post; and, unless the contrary is proved, service is deemed to have been effected at the time the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. In Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh, the Supreme Court held that where a notice sent by registered post is returned with an endorsement of refusal, service is presumed to be effected. Analysis: In the given scenario, Mr. Rachit shifted house but did not update his address with the Income Tax Department, which sent a notice by registered post, properly addressed, to the address on its records. The notice reached the old address, where the present occupant refused to accept it. The Department later took penal action, which Mr. Rachit contests on the ground of non-receipt. Accordingly, in the light of the stated provision, since the notice was properly addressed and sent by registered post to the address recorded with the Department, service is deemed to have been validly effected under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, regardless of actual receipt. It was Mr. Rachit's own responsibility to update his address. Conclusion: Hence, the Income Tax Department's action is valid, and Mr. Rachit's contention of improper service does not hold.