<?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>2001 (2) TMI 80 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14194</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found the assessment void due to failure to serve notices to all legal representatives. The Supreme Court clarified that procedural defects do not invalidate tax liability unless substantive provisions are breached. The High Court held the assessment order was irregular but not void, requiring proper notice issuance for rectification. Emphasizing the importance of fair procedure, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, affirming the validity of the assessment order despite the procedural irregularity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:18:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53194" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 80 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14194</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found the assessment void due to failure to serve notices to all legal representatives. The Supreme Court clarified that procedural defects do not invalidate tax liability unless substantive provisions are breached. The High Court held the assessment order was irregular but not void, requiring proper notice issuance for rectification. Emphasizing the importance of fair procedure, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, affirming the validity of the assessment order despite the procedural irregularity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14194</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>