9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or residence is the proper mode of service. In this case, after passing of the final orders, the same were served on the assessee on February 28, 2004 and June 7, 2003 respectively by way of affixtures. Therefore, service of notices was done by following rule 52(1)(c) and (d), which could be sufficient service, thus do not find any infirmity in the mode of service. As such, the writ petitions fail and stand dismissed. - Writ Petition Nos. 1342,1343 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 17-6-2009 - DHANAPALAN V., J. ORDER:- V. DHANAPALAN J. These writ petitions have been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in Roc. No. A3/1023/2002-TNGST No. 6201145, dated Janua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, it has lost appeal remedy, as it was time-barred and, as such, he could not pursue the matter before the appellate authority to stave off the situation. The one and only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that service of notice is not made as contemplated under rule 52(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959. Let us see what rule 52(1) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, contemplates: Rule 52. Service of notices. (1) The service on a dealer of any notice, summons or order under the Act or these Rules may be effected in any of the following ways, namely: (a) by giving or tendering it to such dealer or his manager or agent or the legal practitioner appointed to represent him or t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from the petitioner, the respondent had confirmed the proposal and finally assessed the petitioner to tax, by passing final orders on February 23, 2004 and May 30, 2003, which were served on February 28, 2004 and June 7, 2003, respectively, by way of affixtures. Even against the said orders, the petitioner had an appellatev remedy before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore, which was not availed of, and the said orders attained finality. So, there was proper service, as contemplated under rule 52(1). Yet other futile contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the firm was in lock out, the notices ought to have been served at the partner s residential address. In this connection, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
