<?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 (12) TMI 880 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160620</link>
    <description>Proper service of notice under Rule 63 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 required first using delivery, tender, or post, and affixture could be used only after those modes were attempted and satisfaction was recorded that the addressee was evading service or that service could not otherwise be effected. Because the record showed no compliance with those mandatory preconditions, service by affixture alone was ineffective and the assessment proceedings were conducted ex parte behind the petitioner&#039;s back. The assessment, reassessment, and revisional orders were therefore invalid for want of proper notice and had to be quashed, with fresh assessment to follow after giving the petitioner an opportunity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:12:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=340202" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 880 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160620</link>
      <description>Proper service of notice under Rule 63 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 required first using delivery, tender, or post, and affixture could be used only after those modes were attempted and satisfaction was recorded that the addressee was evading service or that service could not otherwise be effected. Because the record showed no compliance with those mandatory preconditions, service by affixture alone was ineffective and the assessment proceedings were conducted ex parte behind the petitioner&#039;s back. The assessment, reassessment, and revisional orders were therefore invalid for want of proper notice and had to be quashed, with fresh assessment to follow after giving the petitioner an opportunity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>