<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1963 (3) TMI 43 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128884</link>
    <description>Service of a reassessment notice on an assessee&#039;s authorised advocate was held to be valid service on the assessee because the power of attorney permitted the advocate to act, appear, conduct and plead before the Assessing Authority, bringing him within the definition of an agent under the relevant rules. Rule 66 treated service on the person concerned, or on his manager or agent, as good service, and the absence of an express clause authorising receipt of notice did not defeat validity. Authorities cited to the contrary were distinguished as not arising under pari materia rules. The notice was therefore validly served and the reassessment proceedings remained within jurisdiction and limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:09:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165753" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (3) TMI 43 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128884</link>
      <description>Service of a reassessment notice on an assessee&#039;s authorised advocate was held to be valid service on the assessee because the power of attorney permitted the advocate to act, appear, conduct and plead before the Assessing Authority, bringing him within the definition of an agent under the relevant rules. Rule 66 treated service on the person concerned, or on his manager or agent, as good service, and the absence of an express clause authorising receipt of notice did not defeat validity. Authorities cited to the contrary were distinguished as not arising under pari materia rules. The notice was therefore validly served and the reassessment proceedings remained within jurisdiction and limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128884</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>