<?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>2007 (9) TMI 565 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163201</link>
    <description>Service of notices, summons, orders or proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules must comply with Rule 58, which specifies permissible modes of service including personal delivery, delivery at the last known address, service on an adult family member, registered post, or affixture where necessary. Ordinary post is not an authorised mode, so dispatch by that method cannot by itself establish valid service. As valid service was not shown and the dealer alleged lack of hearing before the interest order was made, the impugned order could not be sustained. The order imposing interest was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after giving the dealer an opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349758" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 565 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163201</link>
      <description>Service of notices, summons, orders or proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Rules must comply with Rule 58, which specifies permissible modes of service including personal delivery, delivery at the last known address, service on an adult family member, registered post, or affixture where necessary. Ordinary post is not an authorised mode, so dispatch by that method cannot by itself establish valid service. As valid service was not shown and the dealer alleged lack of hearing before the interest order was made, the impugned order could not be sustained. The order imposing interest was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after giving the dealer an opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163201</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>