9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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 section 21 of the Act, stood dissolved on March 31, 1978, that is, at the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 received the notice on behalf of the firm. 6.. In para 11 of the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cally 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 would not have made any interference but the facts as stated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
