<?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>1997 (5) TMI 414 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161166</link>
    <description>Duly served notice is a jurisdictional prerequisite for reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. Service by affixation is the weakest mode of service and can be accepted only where avoidance of service is shown and the factual basis for that mode is established. On the admitted facts, the firm had already been dissolved, the premises affixed were no longer used by it, and the shop had been let to another person; these assertions were not specifically denied. Service on the old business premises was therefore not lawful, the assessing officer lacked jurisdiction, and the impugned order could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2014 16:22:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342100" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (5) TMI 414 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161166</link>
      <description>Duly served notice is a jurisdictional prerequisite for reassessment under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. Service by affixation is the weakest mode of service and can be accepted only where avoidance of service is shown and the factual basis for that mode is established. On the admitted facts, the firm had already been dissolved, the premises affixed were no longer used by it, and the shop had been let to another person; these assertions were not specifically denied. Service on the old business premises was therefore not lawful, the assessing officer lacked jurisdiction, and the impugned order could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 May 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161166</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>