<?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>2017 (3) TMI 338 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339835</link>
    <description>Assessment orders were set aside where the quasi-judicial process was found to breach natural justice. The High Court noted that the request to summon dealers and examine transactions was not dealt with, the proceedings were completed in undue haste, and the signed assessment order was not properly available on the file for a considerable time. It also held that service of the assessment order and demand notice by e-mail was insufficient because the governing rules required service of a certified copy, while e-mail service was confined to summons. The matters were directed to be reconsidered afresh before the Designated Officer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2017 07:13:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460612" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 338 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339835</link>
      <description>Assessment orders were set aside where the quasi-judicial process was found to breach natural justice. The High Court noted that the request to summon dealers and examine transactions was not dealt with, the proceedings were completed in undue haste, and the signed assessment order was not properly available on the file for a considerable time. It also held that service of the assessment order and demand notice by e-mail was insufficient because the governing rules required service of a certified copy, while e-mail service was confined to summons. The matters were directed to be reconsidered afresh before the Designated Officer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339835</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>