https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68851 Common partners did not, by themselves, justify treating two partnership concerns as one taxable unit for sales tax purposes. Where the record showed separate deeds, establishments, accounts, bank accounts, registrations and assessments, and there was no proof of interlacing, interlocking, sham or camouflage, the firms had to be treated as distinct taxable entities. The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act also recognised a firm as a separate dealer, supporting separate assessment of each concern. On that basis, the turnover of one concern could not be clubbed with the appellant's assessment, and the aggregation was held unsustainable in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 15 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Apr 2011 10:54:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68851 Common partners did not, by themselves, justify treating two partnership concerns as one taxable unit for sales tax purposes. Where the record showed separate deeds, establishments, accounts, bank accounts, registrations and assessments, and there was no proof of interlacing, interlocking, sham or camouflage, the firms had to be treated as distinct taxable entities. The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act also recognised a firm as a separate dealer, supporting separate assessment of each concern. On that basis, the turnover of one concern could not be clubbed with the appellant's assessment, and the aggregation was held unsustainable in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Oct 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68851