<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1994 (4) TMI 342 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104624</link>
    <description>Set-off in a money claim is maintainable only where the defendant&#039;s cross-claim is an ascertained debt legally recoverable in law and supported by mutual dealings between the parties. A time-barred or unproven liability, including an alleged sales tax payment not shown to have been made on the company&#039;s directions or with its consent, cannot be used as set-off. The material also did not establish any legal obligation on the company to issue C forms or any basis to fasten the alleged pre-winding-up liability on the official liquidator. The recovery claim therefore prevailed and the set-off defence failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:37:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141663" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (4) TMI 342 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104624</link>
      <description>Set-off in a money claim is maintainable only where the defendant&#039;s cross-claim is an ascertained debt legally recoverable in law and supported by mutual dealings between the parties. A time-barred or unproven liability, including an alleged sales tax payment not shown to have been made on the company&#039;s directions or with its consent, cannot be used as set-off. The material also did not establish any legal obligation on the company to issue C forms or any basis to fasten the alleged pre-winding-up liability on the official liquidator. The recovery claim therefore prevailed and the set-off defence failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104624</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>