https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327405 Change of principal place of business under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act had to be reflected by amendment of the registration certificate from the date of the event, and delay in intimation or a curable fee defect did not justify rejection. Ex parte assessment and garnishee recovery could not stand where notice was not validly served in the prescribed manner; service at an old address, when the authority knew of the shift, was ineffective. A recall application under section 32 could not be rejected on limitation or non-deposit grounds when the assessment order itself was not validly served and the admitted tax had already been recovered coercively. The impugned orders were annulled and fresh action was left open only after valid service and hearing. en-us Mon, 29 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 May 2016 11:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327405 Change of principal place of business under the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act had to be reflected by amendment of the registration certificate from the date of the event, and delay in intimation or a curable fee defect did not justify rejection. Ex parte assessment and garnishee recovery could not stand where notice was not validly served in the prescribed manner; service at an old address, when the authority knew of the shift, was ineffective. A recall application under section 32 could not be rejected on limitation or non-deposit grounds when the assessment order itself was not validly served and the admitted tax had already been recovered coercively. The impugned orders were annulled and fresh action was left open only after valid service and hearing. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 29 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327405