https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128998 A recovery order was upheld where the petitioner had prior notice of the proposed action and had discussed the matter before the final order, so no breach of natural justice was made out. The claimed instalment arrangement was not enforceable against the State because it was not shown to have been made in compliance with Article 299(1), which is mandatory for a valid State contract; non-compliance rendered it void. The recovery authority also could not vary instalments by analogy to Order XX Rule 11(2), since that power belongs only to the court passing the decree, not an execution authority. en-us Tue, 30 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:02:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128998 A recovery order was upheld where the petitioner had prior notice of the proposed action and had discussed the matter before the final order, so no breach of natural justice was made out. The claimed instalment arrangement was not enforceable against the State because it was not shown to have been made in compliance with Article 299(1), which is mandatory for a valid State contract; non-compliance rendered it void. The recovery authority also could not vary instalments by analogy to Order XX Rule 11(2), since that power belongs only to the court passing the decree, not an execution authority. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 30 Mar 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128998