<?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>1981 (4) TMI 256 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152979</link>
    <description>Substituted service by affixation is valid only when the statutory preconditions are met: ordinary modes of service must first be attempted, and the authority must record satisfaction that the addressee is avoiding service or that service cannot otherwise be effected. On the facts, the notice had merely returned marked &quot;left&quot;, the authorities knew of another business address, and no proper enquiry or recorded satisfaction preceded affixation, so service was invalid. Because the limitation objection depended on that purported service, the rejection of the revision petition as time-barred was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:59:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170016" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (4) TMI 256 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152979</link>
      <description>Substituted service by affixation is valid only when the statutory preconditions are met: ordinary modes of service must first be attempted, and the authority must record satisfaction that the addressee is avoiding service or that service cannot otherwise be effected. On the facts, the notice had merely returned marked &quot;left&quot;, the authorities knew of another business address, and no proper enquiry or recorded satisfaction preceded affixation, so service was invalid. Because the limitation objection depended on that purported service, the rejection of the revision petition as time-barred was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152979</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>