Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 - Test 3: answer key

Question 1 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · hard

Scenario. The Bharat Infrastructure Development Authority (BIDA) was constituted under the BIDA Act, 2020. Section 12 of the Act empowers the Chairperson to appoint a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and other officers. In January 2024, the then Chairperson, Mr. Aditya, appointed Mr. Bhaskar as the CEO. In November 2024, Mr. Aditya suspended Mr. Bhaskar pending an inquiry into alleged financial irregularities. In March 2025, Mr. Aditya retired and Mr. Chandan was appointed as the new Chairperson. In May 2025, Mr. Chandan dismissed Mr. Bhaskar based on the inquiry report. Meanwhile, a notification was issued by Mr. Aditya granting certain tax exemptions to infrastructure projects. Later, the Act was amended, and the designation 'Chairperson' was replaced by 'Managing Director'. Mr. Dhruv was appointed as the Managing Director. Mr. Dhruv sought to amend the exemption notification issued by Mr. Aditya. The BIDA also had a Deputy Chairperson, Ms. Esha, who exercised certain statutory powers during Mr. Chandan's absence. Mr. Bhaskar contends that his suspension and dismissal are invalid because they were not ratified by the Board. The BIDA board seeks legal advice on the validity of these actions under the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Mr. Aditya suspended Mr. Bhaskar in November 2024. Is this action valid under Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897?

1. No, because the power to suspend is a quasi-judicial function and cannot be exercised by the appointing authority.
2. No, because the Act expressly provides for suspension and Section 16 does not apply.
3. Yes, because the authority having the power to make the appointment also has the power to suspend or dismiss. (correct answer)
4. Yes, but only if the suspension is ratified by the Board of Directors.

Answer: C — Yes, because the authority having the power to make the appointment also has the power to suspend or dismiss.

Explanation. Section 16 provides that the authority having for the time being power to make the appointment shall also have power to suspend or dismiss any person appointed whether by itself or any other authority in exercise of that power. The power to appoint includes the power to suspend or dismiss, making option (c) correct. Option (a) is incorrect because the power is administrative; option (b) is incorrect because Section 16 applies unless a different intention appears; option (d) is incorrect as no ratification is required.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think suspension is a quasi-judicial function or requires Board ratification.

Authority. Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Question 2 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · medium

Mr. Chandan dismissed Mr. Bhaskar in May 2025. Mr. Bhaskar contends that Mr. Chandan, not being the appointing authority, cannot dismiss him. Is Mr. Bhaskar's contention valid?

1. Yes, because the power to dismiss is personal to the appointing authority.
2. No, because the President has the power to dismiss all public servants.
3. Yes, because the dismissal must be by the same authority that appointed him.
4. No, because the authority having for the time being the power to make the appointment can also dismiss. (correct answer)

Answer: D — No, because the authority having for the time being the power to make the appointment can also dismiss.

Explanation. Section 16 provides that the authority having for the time being the power to make the appointment shall also have the power to suspend or dismiss. Mr. Chandan, as the current Chairperson, is the authority having the power to make the appointment for the time being, and therefore he can dismiss Mr. Bhaskar. Option (d) is correct. Option (a) is incorrect because the power is not personal to the original appointing authority. Options (b) and (c) are incorrect as they misapply the law.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think only the original appointing authority can dismiss.

Authority. Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Question 3 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · hard

Mr. Aditya issued a notification. The Act was amended, and the designation 'Chairperson' was replaced by 'Managing Director'. Mr. Dhruv, the Managing Director, seeks to amend the notification. Is he competent to do so?

1. No, because only the original authority can amend its own notification.
2. No, because the notification lapsed with the change in designation.
3. Yes, because a new authority can always override the decisions of the old authority.
4. Yes, because mention of the official title is sufficient to indicate the officer for the time being executing the functions. (correct answer)

Answer: D — Yes, because mention of the official title is sufficient to indicate the officer for the time being executing the functions.

Explanation. Section 17 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that for the purpose of indicating the application of a law to every person for the time being executing the functions of an office, it is sufficient to mention the official title. When the designation was changed to Managing Director, Mr. Dhruv became the officer executing those functions. Therefore, he is competent to amend the notification. Option (d) is correct. Option (a) is incorrect because the law recognizes successors; option (b) is incorrect because the notification does not lapse; option (c) is not the correct legal reasoning.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think the notification becomes invalid when the designation changes.

Authority. Section 17 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Question 4 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · hard

Ms. Esha, the Deputy Chairperson, exercised statutory powers during Mr. Chandan's absence. What is the correct legal position under Section 19 of the General Clauses Act, 1897?

1. The action is invalid because only the principal officer can exercise statutory powers.
2. The action is valid only if approved by the Chairperson upon his return.
3. The action is valid because a law relative to the chief or superior applies to deputies or subordinates lawfully performing the duties. (correct answer)
4. The action is invalid unless the Act specifically authorizes the Deputy Chairperson to act.

Answer: C — The action is valid because a law relative to the chief or superior applies to deputies or subordinates lawfully performing the duties.

Explanation. Section 19 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that a law relative to the chief or superior of an office shall apply to the deputies or subordinates lawfully performing the duties of that office in the place of their superior. Since Ms. Esha was lawfully performing the duties during Mr. Chandan's absence, her action is valid. Option (c) is correct. Option (a) is incorrect because deputies can act; option (b) is incorrect as no ratification is needed; option (d) is incorrect because Section 19 applies.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think only the principal officer can act.

Authority. Section 19 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Question 5 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · medium

Scenario. Vayu Renewables Ltd operates wind farms under the Renewable Energy Act, 2015. The Central Government issued a notification in 2020 granting a generation-based subsidy. In 2022, the government amended the notification to reduce the subsidy rate. In 2024, the government proposed new rules for grid connectivity. The Act required the rules to be made after previous publication. The government published the draft rules in the Official Gazette and invited objections within 30 days. Several industry associations submitted objections. The government considered the objections, made minor ancillary changes to the draft, and published the final rules without re-publishing the amended draft. In 2025, the Renewable Energy Act, 2015 was repealed and re-enacted as the Green Energy Act, 2025. The re-enacted Act did not contain the subsidy provision, but retained the grid connectivity provisions. Vayu Renewables claims that the 2022 notification and the 2024 rules have lapsed. The company has challenged the amendment and the rules before the High Court. The company contends that the government's failure to re-publish the amended draft vitiates the rule-making process. The company also argues that the government's failure to re-publish the amended draft invalidates the rules. The outcome will depend on the interpretation of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

The government amended the 2020 notification in 2022 to reduce the subsidy. Is this amendment valid?

1. No, because a notification once issued cannot be amended without a fresh Act of Parliament.
2. No, because the amendment was made without prior publication.
3. Yes, because the power to issue a notification includes the power to add to, amend, vary or rescind it. (correct answer)
4. Yes, but only if the amendment is approved by the President.

Answer: C — Yes, because the power to issue a notification includes the power to add to, amend, vary or rescind it.

Explanation. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that where by any legislation a power to issue notifications is conferred, then that power includes the power to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications so issued. The government's amendment of the 2020 notification is therefore valid. Option (c) is correct. Option (a) is incorrect because the power is inherent; option (b) is incorrect as Section 21 does not require prior publication for amendments; option (d) is incorrect as no presidential approval is needed.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think notifications are immutable.

Authority. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Question 6 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · hard

The government published draft rules, received objections, made minor ancillary changes, and published the final rules without re-publishing the amended draft. Is the publication of the final rules valid?

1. No, because the amended draft must always be re-published for public comments.
2. No, because the government did not consider the objections.
3. Yes, but only if the objections were rejected by a speaking order.
4. Yes, because it is not necessary to re-publish the amended draft if the changes are ancillary. (correct answer)

Answer: D — Yes, because it is not necessary to re-publish the amended draft if the changes are ancillary.

Explanation. Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 deals with previous publication. It is well settled that it is open to the authority to make suitable changes in the draft before final publication. It is not necessary to re-publish the rules in the amended form if the changes are ancillary to the earlier draft and not foreign to the subject matter. Therefore, the publication is valid. Option (d) is correct. Option (a) is incorrect as re-publication is not always mandatory; option (b) is incorrect as objections were considered; option (c) is not a statutory requirement.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think any change requires re-publication.

Authority. Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Question 7 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · hard

What is the statutory obligation of the government regarding the objections received during the previous publication of the draft rules?

1. It must consider any objection or suggestion received before the specified date. (correct answer)
2. It must incorporate all objections into the final rules.
3. It must forward the objections to the President for approval.
4. It has no obligation to consider objections once the draft is published.

Answer: A — It must consider any objection or suggestion received before the specified date.

Explanation. Section 23(4) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that the authority having power to make the rules shall consider any objection or suggestion which may be received from any person with respect to the draft before the date specified. The government must consider the objections. Option (a) is correct. Option (b) is incorrect because the authority is not bound to accept all objections; option (c) is incorrect as there is no such requirement; option (d) is incorrect as there is a statutory obligation to consider.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think 'consider' means 'accept', or that there is no obligation to consider.

Authority. Section 23(4) of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Question 8 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · medium

The 2015 Act was repealed and re-enacted as the Green Energy Act, 2025. The 2024 grid connectivity rules do not conflict with the 2025 Act. Do these rules continue under Section 24?

1. No, all rules automatically lapse upon repeal.
2. Yes, they continue in force and are deemed to have been made under the re-enacted Act. (correct answer)
3. Yes, all rules continue indefinitely.
4. No, they continue only if the new Act expressly saves them.

Answer: B — Yes, they continue in force and are deemed to have been made under the re-enacted Act.

Explanation. Section 24 provides that rules made under a repealed Act continue in force and are deemed to have been made under the re-enacted Act, unless they are inconsistent. Since the 2024 rules do not conflict with the 2025 Act, they continue. Option (b) is correct. Option (a) is incorrect because Section 24 saves them; option (c) is incorrect because they can be superseded; option (d) is incorrect because Section 24 operates automatically.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think express saving is required.

Authority. Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Question 9 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · hard

Scenario. Zenith Agro Tech Ltd availed a term loan from PNB. The loan agreement provided that all notices to the borrower and the guarantor, Mr. Gopal, must be sent by registered post. PNB sent a demand notice to Zenith at its registered office. Zenith refused to accept the registered letter. PNB also sent a notice to Mr. Gopal by ordinary post, which Mr. Gopal claims he never received. Subsequently, PNB sent another notice to Mr. Gopal by courier. The statutory rules under the applicable Act require notices to be served by registered post. PNB seeks to rely on the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Mr. Gopal argues that since he did not actually receive the notice, the service is invalid. He also contends that the courier notice is invalid because it was not sent by registered post. PNB argues that the refusal by Zenith and the posting by registered post to Mr. Gopal are sufficient to establish valid service. The company and the guarantor have challenged the validity of the notices in court. The court is required to determine whether the presumption of service can be invoked in these circumstances. The outcome will depend on the interpretation of Section 27 and the facts of the case.

PNB sent a demand notice to Zenith by registered post. Zenith refused to accept the letter. What is the legal consequence under Section 27?

1. The notice is invalid because Zenith did not accept it.
2. The notice is valid only if PNB sends a second notice by ordinary post.
3. The notice is deemed to be served because the refusal was made by the addressee. (correct answer)
4. The notice is deemed to be served at the time it was posted.

Answer: C — The notice is deemed to be served because the refusal was made by the addressee.

Explanation. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides for deemed service when a document is sent by registered post. If the addressee refuses to accept the notice, the service is deemed to be effected. The refusal does not invalidate the service. Option (c) is correct. Option (a) is incorrect because refusal cannot defeat service; option (b) is incorrect as no second notice is required; option (d) is incorrect because service is deemed at the time of delivery in the ordinary course, not at the time of posting.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think refusal invalidates service.

Authority. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Question 10 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · medium

PNB sent a notice to Mr. Gopal by ordinary post. Mr. Gopal claims non-receipt. Is the service valid under Section 27?

1. No, because the statute requires service by registered post. (correct answer)
2. Yes, because ordinary post is sufficient if the addressee denies receipt.
3. Yes, because the addressee's denial shifts the burden to him.
4. No, because the notice must be sent by courier.

Answer: A — No, because the statute requires service by registered post.

Explanation. Section 27 provides for service by post. The statutory requirement is that the document must be sent by registered post. If the notice is sent by ordinary post, the presumption under Section 27 does not apply. Option (a) is correct. Option (b) is incorrect because ordinary post does not attract the presumption; option (c) is incorrect as the burden does not shift; option (d) is incorrect as courier is not the prescribed mode.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think any mode of post is sufficient.

Authority. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Question 11 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · medium

PNB sent a notice to Mr. Gopal by courier. Is the service valid under Section 27?

1. No, unless the courier service is recognized as registered post. (correct answer)
2. Yes, because courier is faster than registered post.
3. Yes, because the Act does not specifically exclude courier.
4. No, because the notice must be sent by speed post.

Answer: A — No, unless the courier service is recognized as registered post.

Explanation. Section 27 applies to service by registered post. A notice sent by courier does not attract the statutory presumption unless the courier service is recognized as registered post under the relevant rules. Option (a) is correct. Option (b) is incorrect because speed is irrelevant; option (c) is incorrect because the Act specifically requires registered post; option (d) is incorrect as speed post is not the only alternative.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think courier is equivalent to registered post.

Authority. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Question 12 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · medium

Under Section 27, when is the service of a document by post deemed to be effected?

1. At the time the document is handed over to the post office.
2. At the time the addressee actually receives the letter.
3. At the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. (correct answer)
4. At the time the sender receives the acknowledgment due.

Answer: C — At the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

Explanation. Section 27 provides that the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, and the letter containing the document shall be deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. Option (c) is correct. Option (a) is incorrect because posting is not the time of service; option (b) is incorrect because actual receipt is not required; option (d) is incorrect as acknowledgment is not the determinant.

Where it goes wrong. Students may confuse time of posting with time of service.

Authority. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Question 13 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · medium

Scenario. The Central Government issued a notification under a Central Act in 2022. In 2024, the government issued another notification rescinding the 2022 notification. Is the rescission valid?

The Central Government issued a notification under a Central Act in 2022. In 2024, the government issued another notification rescinding the 2022 notification. Is the rescission valid?

1. No, because a notification once issued cannot be rescinded without a fresh Act.
2. No, because the rescission violates the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
3. Yes, but only if the rescission is approved by Parliament.
4. Yes, because the power to issue a notification includes the power to rescind it. (correct answer)

Answer: D — Yes, because the power to issue a notification includes the power to rescind it.

Explanation. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that the power to issue a notification includes the power to add to, amend, vary or rescind it. The rescission of the 2022 notification is therefore valid. Option (d) is correct. Option (a) is incorrect as the power is statutory; option (b) is incorrect as rescission is a valid exercise of statutory power; option (c) is incorrect as no parliamentary approval is needed.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think a notification cannot be rescinded.

Authority. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Question 14 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · hard

Scenario. An order was issued under an Act. A dispute arose regarding the meaning of the term 'approved' used in the order. The Act defines 'approved' in a specific manner. How should the term be construed in the order?

An order was issued under an Act. A dispute arose regarding the meaning of the term 'approved' used in the order. The Act defines 'approved' in a specific manner. How should the term be construed in the order?

1. As per the dictionary meaning, because the order is a separate instrument.
2. As per the rules of natural justice, because the order affects rights.
3. As per the definition in the Act, because the expression has the same meaning as in the Act. (correct answer)
4. As per the interpretation of the court, because the order is subordinate legislation.

Answer: C — As per the definition in the Act, because the expression has the same meaning as in the Act.

Explanation. Section 20 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that where a power to issue any notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law is conferred, then expressions used in the notification or order shall, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, have the same respective meaning as in the Act conferring the power. Option (c) is correct. Option (a) is incorrect as the Act's definition prevails; option (b) is irrelevant; option (d) is incorrect as the court's interpretation is not the first resort.

Where it goes wrong. Students may apply the dictionary meaning.

Authority. Section 20 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Question 15 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · medium

Scenario. A statute provided for the appointment of a Director. The appointment was made by the Board. The statute was repealed and re-enacted. Does the appointment continue?

A statute provided for the appointment of a Director. The appointment was made by the Board. The statute was repealed and re-enacted. Does the appointment continue?

1. No, all appointments lapse upon repeal.
2. Yes, because any appointment made under the repealed Act continues in force under Section 24. (correct answer)
3. Yes, because the appointment is a contract.
4. No, the appointment must be re-made under the new Act.

Answer: B — Yes, because any appointment made under the repealed Act continues in force under Section 24.

Explanation. Section 24 provides that any appointment made under the repealed Act shall continue in force and be deemed to have been made under the re-enacted Act. Option (b) is correct. Option (a) is incorrect as appointments do not lapse; option (c) is not the legal basis; option (d) is incorrect as re-appointment is not required.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think appointments lapse on repeal.

Authority. Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Question 16 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · hard

Scenario. A notice was sent to a company by registered post at its registered office. The company did not receive it due to a postal error. Can the sender claim deemed service?

A notice was sent to a company by registered post at its registered office. The company did not receive it due to a postal error. Can the sender claim deemed service?

1. Yes, the sender is protected unless the company proves it was not served. (correct answer)
2. No, the sender must prove actual receipt.
3. Yes, but only if the notice was sent by speed post.
4. No, the sender must send a second notice by courier.

Answer: A — Yes, the sender is protected unless the company proves it was not served.

Explanation. Section 27 provides that service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, unless a different intention appears. The presumption is in favor of the sender. The company can rebut it by proving that the notice was not served. Option (a) is correct. Option (b) is incorrect as actual receipt is not required; option (c) is incorrect as speed post is not the only mode; option (d) is incorrect as a second notice is not mandatory.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think actual receipt must be proved.

Authority. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Question 17 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · hard

Scenario. An authority was empowered to appoint a person to an office. The authority appointed Mr. X. Later, the authority suspended Mr. X. Is the suspension valid?

An authority was empowered to appoint a person to an office. The authority appointed Mr. X. Later, the authority suspended Mr. X. Is the suspension valid?

1. Yes, the power to appoint includes the power to suspend. (correct answer)
2. No, the power to appoint does not include the power to suspend.
3. Yes, but only if the suspension is for a maximum of 30 days.
4. No, only the court can suspend an appointed person.

Answer: A — Yes, the power to appoint includes the power to suspend.

Explanation. Section 16 provides that the authority having the power to make the appointment also has the power to suspend or dismiss. Option (a) is correct. Option (b) is incorrect as the power is included; option (c) is incorrect as there is no time limit in the section; option (d) is incorrect as the authority can suspend.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think suspension is a judicial function.

Authority. Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Question 18 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · hard

Scenario. The government issued a notification. It later realized that the notification was based on a mistake. The government issued a corrigendum. Is the corrigendum valid?

The government issued a notification. It later realized that the notification was based on a mistake. The government issued a corrigendum. Is the corrigendum valid?

1. Yes, the power to issue includes the power to amend or vary the notification. (correct answer)
2. No, a notification cannot be amended once it is published.
3. Yes, but only if the corrigendum is approved by the President.
4. No, the government must issue a fresh notification.

Answer: A — Yes, the power to issue includes the power to amend or vary the notification.

Explanation. Section 21 provides that the power to issue a notification includes the power to add to, amend, vary or rescind it. A corrigendum is an amendment and is therefore valid. Option (a) is correct. Option (b) is incorrect as amendments are permitted; option (c) is incorrect as presidential approval is not required; option (d) is incorrect as a fresh notification is not necessary.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think a published notification is final.

Authority. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Question 19 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · hard

Scenario. A law was amended, and the designation 'Inspector' was changed to 'Registrar'. The powers of the Inspector were transferred to the Registrar. Is an action taken by the Registrar valid?

A law was amended, and the designation 'Inspector' was changed to 'Registrar'. The powers of the Inspector were transferred to the Registrar. Is an action taken by the Registrar valid?

1. No, because the Act only mentions the Inspector.
2. Yes, but only if the action is ratified by the government.
3. No, because the Registrar is not the same as the Inspector.
4. Yes, because the reference to the Inspector includes the successor authority. (correct answer)

Answer: D — Yes, because the reference to the Inspector includes the successor authority.

Explanation. Section 18 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that it is sufficient, for the purpose of indicating the relation of a law to the successors of any functionaries, to express its relation to the functionaries. When the designation changed, the Registrar became the successor. Option (d) is correct. Option (a) is incorrect as the law applies to successors; option (b) is incorrect as ratification is not needed; option (c) is incorrect as the successor steps into the shoes of the predecessor.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think a change in designation invalidates actions.

Authority. Section 18 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Question 20 · 2 marks · Chapter 13: The General Clauses Act, 1897 · hard

Scenario. A statute requires a document to be served by post. The sender properly addressed, pre-paid, and sent the document by registered post. The addressee denies receipt. What must the addressee prove to rebut the presumption of service?

A statute requires a document to be served by post. The sender properly addressed, pre-paid, and sent the document by registered post. The addressee denies receipt. What must the addressee prove to rebut the presumption of service?

1. That the document was not properly addressed.
2. That he did not receive the document despite it being sent in the ordinary course. (correct answer)
3. That the document was not pre-paid.
4. That the document was not sent by registered post.

Answer: B — That he did not receive the document despite it being sent in the ordinary course.

Explanation. Section 27 provides a presumption of service when a document is sent by registered post. The presumption is that the service was effected at the time the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. To rebut this presumption, the addressee must prove that he did not receive the document despite it being sent in the ordinary course. Option (b) is correct. Options (a), (c) and (d) are conditions for the applicability of the presumption, not grounds to rebut it once the conditions are met.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think denying receipt is enough, but the denial must be substantiated.

Authority. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897