<?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>2001 (9) TMI 1079 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160372</link>
    <description>B-6 notices issued under section 26 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act were required to be served on the petitioners, because direct service only on the oil corporations deprived them of a practical opportunity to invoke revision under section 33. The objection that personal service on the petitioners was unnecessary was rejected. The Court directed service of the notices on the petitioners so they could take further steps before the revisional authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:23:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339562" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 1079 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160372</link>
      <description>B-6 notices issued under section 26 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act were required to be served on the petitioners, because direct service only on the oil corporations deprived them of a practical opportunity to invoke revision under section 33. The objection that personal service on the petitioners was unnecessary was rejected. The Court directed service of the notices on the petitioners so they could take further steps before the revisional authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160372</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>