https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115784 Forfeiture of the residential property could not be sustained because the notice and final order failed to identify the property with sufficient clarity, as they omitted specific particulars such as municipal or plot numbers and boundaries. The record also showed that the appellant consistently asserted the property belonged to his father, yet no finding rejected that plea and no notice was issued to the father or other legal heirs. The absence of proper identification and notice to persons whose rights were directly affected breached fair notice requirements, so the forfeiture was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh action in accordance with law. en-us Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jun 2012 18:34:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115784 Forfeiture of the residential property could not be sustained because the notice and final order failed to identify the property with sufficient clarity, as they omitted specific particulars such as municipal or plot numbers and boundaries. The record also showed that the appellant consistently asserted the property belonged to his father, yet no finding rejected that plea and no notice was issued to the father or other legal heirs. The absence of proper identification and notice to persons whose rights were directly affected breached fair notice requirements, so the forfeiture was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh action in accordance with law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115784