<?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 (10) TMI 590 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163632</link>
    <description>Affixation of notice under rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948 is valid only after attempted personal service or registered-post service, with recorded reasons showing those modes were not possible or that the addressee was evading service. The process-server report here failed to show prior service attempts, reasons for affixation, the exact place of affixation, and the identifying signature or thumb impression required by sub-rule (5). The notice was therefore not served in the prescribed manner, the assessee was denied a proper hearing, and the ex parte Tribunal order was rightly set aside with remand for fresh decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Dec 2014 12:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 590 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163632</link>
      <description>Affixation of notice under rule 77 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948 is valid only after attempted personal service or registered-post service, with recorded reasons showing those modes were not possible or that the addressee was evading service. The process-server report here failed to show prior service attempts, reasons for affixation, the exact place of affixation, and the identifying signature or thumb impression required by sub-rule (5). The notice was therefore not served in the prescribed manner, the assessee was denied a proper hearing, and the ex parte Tribunal order was rightly set aside with remand for fresh decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163632</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>