<?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>2009 (6) TMI 957 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164857</link>
    <description>Service of pre-assessment notices and final assessment orders was held valid under rule 52(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The court noted that the authorities first attempted registered post to the dealer&#039;s last known address, but the notices were returned with a lockout endorsement. Service was then effected by affixture at the business premises, which the rule permits when tender or registered post is not practicable. The rules did not require service at a partner&#039;s residential address merely because the business was closed, and the dealer&#039;s failure to object or pursue the statutory appeal supported the challenge failing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354810" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 957 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164857</link>
      <description>Service of pre-assessment notices and final assessment orders was held valid under rule 52(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. The court noted that the authorities first attempted registered post to the dealer&#039;s last known address, but the notices were returned with a lockout endorsement. Service was then effected by affixture at the business premises, which the rule permits when tender or registered post is not practicable. The rules did not require service at a partner&#039;s residential address merely because the business was closed, and the dealer&#039;s failure to object or pursue the statutory appeal supported the challenge failing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164857</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>