https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167833 Service of notice for penalty proceedings had to comply strictly with Rule 79(1)(a) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Rules, 2003, which limits valid service to specified persons connected with the dealer or household. A notice signed only by a friend, who was not within the authorised categories, did not amount to valid service, and a later process-server report could not cure that defect. Without proper service and a real opportunity of hearing, the ex parte penalty order could not stand. The adverse order was therefore unsustainable, while the authority was left free to proceed afresh after due notice and hearing in accordance with law. en-us Thu, 22 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2015 11:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167833 Service of notice for penalty proceedings had to comply strictly with Rule 79(1)(a) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Rules, 2003, which limits valid service to specified persons connected with the dealer or household. A notice signed only by a friend, who was not within the authorised categories, did not amount to valid service, and a later process-server report could not cure that defect. Without proper service and a real opportunity of hearing, the ex parte penalty order could not stand. The adverse order was therefore unsustainable, while the authority was left free to proceed afresh after due notice and hearing in accordance with law. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 22 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167833