https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41423 The court upheld the validity of the notice served on Tilakar, considering him as an agent of the petitioner under Section 229 of the Contract Act. As the notice was given in the course of business transacted for the principal, it was deemed binding on the petitioner. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ appeal, denying the petitioner's request for the return of the seized goods. en-us Wed, 20 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Jun 2010 10:58:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41423 The court upheld the validity of the notice served on Tilakar, considering him as an agent of the petitioner under Section 229 of the Contract Act. As the notice was given in the course of business transacted for the principal, it was deemed binding on the petitioner. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ appeal, denying the petitioner's request for the return of the seized goods. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 20 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41423