<?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>2000 (1) TMI 959 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160399</link>
    <description>Pre-assessment notice sent by registered post to the assessee&#039;s known business and residential addresses was treated as valid service where the notices were returned unclaimed or left and the assessing authority had exhausted practicable modes under Rule 52 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The assessee&#039;s failure to inform the department of an address change did not invalidate service. Writ relief under Article 226 was also unavailable because the assessee received the assessment order, did not pursue the statutory appeal, and approached only after recovery steps began. On these facts, interference was not warranted and the challenge to the assessment failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2013 15:48:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=339676" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 959 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160399</link>
      <description>Pre-assessment notice sent by registered post to the assessee&#039;s known business and residential addresses was treated as valid service where the notices were returned unclaimed or left and the assessing authority had exhausted practicable modes under Rule 52 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The assessee&#039;s failure to inform the department of an address change did not invalidate service. Writ relief under Article 226 was also unavailable because the assessee received the assessment order, did not pursue the statutory appeal, and approached only after recovery steps began. On these facts, interference was not warranted and the challenge to the assessment failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160399</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>