<?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>1987 (1) TMI 488 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183818</link>
    <description>After the amendment to Rule 77-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, service of notice on a dealer&#039;s lawyer or authorised agent was no longer permitted. Because the notice under Section 21 was served only on the assessee&#039;s counsel in 1981, when the amended rule was already in force, such service was invalid. The Tribunal&#039;s contrary view ignored the amended text and involved an error of law, so the proceedings initiated on that basis could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2016 14:31:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432548" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (1) TMI 488 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183818</link>
      <description>After the amendment to Rule 77-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, service of notice on a dealer&#039;s lawyer or authorised agent was no longer permitted. Because the notice under Section 21 was served only on the assessee&#039;s counsel in 1981, when the amended rule was already in force, such service was invalid. The Tribunal&#039;s contrary view ignored the amended text and involved an error of law, so the proceedings initiated on that basis could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183818</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>