<?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>2013 (1) TMI 131 - Gujarat High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220025</link>
    <description>Service of a valid notice of demand under section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is a mandatory precondition to treating an assessee as in default. The statutory consequences under section 220, including payment time, interest and default consequences, arise only after such service. On the facts recorded, no legally valid demand notice had been served, despite the assessee&#039;s objections from the outset. As a result, recovery proceedings and the consequential bank attachment under the recovery machinery could not be sustained, and the recovery certificate was without jurisdiction. The foundational defect was not cured by lapse of time.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193394" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 131 - Gujarat High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220025</link>
      <description>Service of a valid notice of demand under section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is a mandatory precondition to treating an assessee as in default. The statutory consequences under section 220, including payment time, interest and default consequences, arise only after such service. On the facts recorded, no legally valid demand notice had been served, despite the assessee&#039;s objections from the outset. As a result, recovery proceedings and the consequential bank attachment under the recovery machinery could not be sustained, and the recovery certificate was without jurisdiction. The foundational defect was not cured by lapse of time.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220025</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>