TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (5) TMI 414
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax Act, 1948 (briefly "the Act") and the order dated September 21, 1982 (annexure "4" to the writ petition) passed under section 21 of the Act. 3.. The case relates to the assessment year 1977-78, the financial year for which ended on March 31, 1978. It is said by the counsel for the petitioner that the firm M/s. Gopal Iron Industries in respect of which impugned order has been passed under sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to some one else who had nothing to do with the firm, the notice could not have been served upon the firm at whose address that was sent. These averments have not been specifically denied in the counter-affidavit. In para 12 of the counteraffidavit, the respondents simply averred that the notice under section 21 of the Act was legally served on the petitioner's firm. It is not stated as to who re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had been let out to one Sri Uma Shankar. This fact is not categorically denied in the counter-affidavit. 7.. On these facts, the contention of the petitioner that service by affixation could not have been legally effected on the premises where the firm continued its business in the past cannot be rejected. 8.. Ordinarily, orders having been passed under section 21 of the Act being appealable, we....