9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also his address at Delhi. Therefore, had the notice dated 29.07.2016 been directed to the petitioner's address, at Delhi, which I am told, is his business address, one would not have come to such a pass. Therefore, in my view, all avenues of effecting service on petitioner were not exhausted. The respondent's proposal to reverse ITC and levy penalty, consequently, did not get communicated to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty, was not served on the petitioner. 4. This matter was placed before me, on 18.12.2016, when, I had asked the counsel for the respondent to file a counter affidavit accompanied by the postal covers, via which, the notice, if any, was sent to the petitioner, since the stand taken before me, on that date, was that the petitioner had returned the notice. 5. Mr. S. Kanmani Annamalai, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Davindrakumar Goyal, S-83, Greater Kailash II, 2nd Floor, New Delhi 110 048. 9. Quite clearly, the respondent had available in its record, not only the local address of the petitioner, but also his address at Delhi. Therefore, had the notice dated 29.07.2016 been directed to the petitioner's address, at Delhi, which I am told, is his business address, one would not have come to such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
