<?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>2000 (3) TMI 1112 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291720</link>
    <description>Where a statute preserves the company&#039;s liability for outstanding amounts after an undertaking vests in Government, the Commissioner must serve notice on the company before adjudicating the claim. The absence of such notice was treated as a defect going to the root of the proceeding and as a breach of natural justice. The adjudication was therefore void and unenforceable against both the company and the Government, and the refusal to grant relief was justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:27:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628377" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 1112 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291720</link>
      <description>Where a statute preserves the company&#039;s liability for outstanding amounts after an undertaking vests in Government, the Commissioner must serve notice on the company before adjudicating the claim. The absence of such notice was treated as a defect going to the root of the proceeding and as a breach of natural justice. The adjudication was therefore void and unenforceable against both the company and the Government, and the refusal to grant relief was justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291720</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>