https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39539 Penalty for default under the Estate Duty Act could not be sustained because no valid demand notice in the prescribed form under rule 26 was served under section 73(1). The notice omitted material particulars required to notify the accountable person of the amount due, the consequences of default, and available remedies, so the statutory basis for treating the person as in default was absent. The demand was also founded on a rectified assessment under section 61 that had already been quashed, which meant the underlying demand had ceased to exist. The penalty order was therefore held unsustainable and was quashed. en-us Thu, 15 May 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:37:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39539 Penalty for default under the Estate Duty Act could not be sustained because no valid demand notice in the prescribed form under rule 26 was served under section 73(1). The notice omitted material particulars required to notify the accountable person of the amount due, the consequences of default, and available remedies, so the statutory basis for treating the person as in default was absent. The demand was also founded on a rectified assessment under section 61 that had already been quashed, which meant the underlying demand had ceased to exist. The penalty order was therefore held unsustainable and was quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 15 May 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39539