https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167406 Where the department knew the noticee had shifted residence or was in lawful custody, service could not be treated as valid by affixation at an incorrect village address, and limitation could not run on that basis. The claimed service on the detenu also failed because communications had to pass through the jail authority under the detention conditions, and the statutory presumption of service was unavailable. As the show cause notice and ex parte adjudication were founded on defective service, the proceedings, adjudication order, and dismissal order were set aside. en-us Sat, 02 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:32:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167406 Where the department knew the noticee had shifted residence or was in lawful custody, service could not be treated as valid by affixation at an incorrect village address, and limitation could not run on that basis. The claimed service on the detenu also failed because communications had to pass through the jail authority under the detention conditions, and the statutory presumption of service was unavailable. As the show cause notice and ex parte adjudication were founded on defective service, the proceedings, adjudication order, and dismissal order were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Sat, 02 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167406