the Taxpayers with administrative procedures specifically created to allow them to protest defective notice of such actions and to protest improper actions the Taxing Authorities took adverse to the Taxpayers’ interests. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. §§ 41.41(a)(1), (3), (9), 41.411(a) (West 2001). The Taxpayers were provided with statutory protections under which they could protest objectionable Taxing Authority actions but chose not to avail themselves of their administrative remedies. Therefore, since the Taxpayers were presented with an opportunity to be heard, deprivations of property that stem from the addition of the omitted property are not unconstitutional. The Taxpayers rely heavily on Fisher, General Electric and Garza to support their position. See Fisher, 88 S.W.3d at 813 (<HOLDING>); General Elec. Corp., 819 S.W.2d at 920
holding that dna act violates neither substantive nor procedural due process under the fifth amendment holding that due process rights were not violated when alien claimed a lack of actual notice but his attorney received notice holding that due process is satisfied where notice is mailed to the wrong address if the appellant received actual notice holding a judgment in the absence of notice violates due process rights holding the taxing authorities violated taxpayers due process rights because taxpayer neither received notice nor had an opportunity to contest the appraisal