<?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 (6) TMI 172 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234347</link>
    <description>Penalty under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act could not be sustained where no notice was served on the assessee and no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the penalty order. The record showed no prior notice, and appearance by the vehicle driver did not cure the defect because he was not an authorised representative of the assessee-firm. The authorities were therefore justified in treating the penalty order as vitiated for breach of natural justice, and the finding in favour of the assessee was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:30:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196759" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 172 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234347</link>
      <description>Penalty under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act could not be sustained where no notice was served on the assessee and no opportunity of hearing was afforded before the penalty order. The record showed no prior notice, and appearance by the vehicle driver did not cure the defect because he was not an authorised representative of the assessee-firm. The authorities were therefore justified in treating the penalty order as vitiated for breach of natural justice, and the finding in favour of the assessee was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234347</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>