<?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>2002 (11) TMI 666 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108577</link>
    <description>Section 32 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 confines transferee liability to tax dues attributable to the business actually transferred, and it does not extend to the transferor&#039;s unrelated outstanding sales tax dues. The corporate veil may be lifted without an express statutory provision where the company structure is used to evade tax recovery or defeat public dues, particularly when control, management and business arrangements show a device to avoid payment. Recovery machinery may be invoked where the officer is duly empowered to act as Collector for sales tax arrears. On these principles, the recovery action was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145594" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 666 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108577</link>
      <description>Section 32 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 confines transferee liability to tax dues attributable to the business actually transferred, and it does not extend to the transferor&#039;s unrelated outstanding sales tax dues. The corporate veil may be lifted without an express statutory provision where the company structure is used to evade tax recovery or defeat public dues, particularly when control, management and business arrangements show a device to avoid payment. Recovery machinery may be invoked where the officer is duly empowered to act as Collector for sales tax arrears. On these principles, the recovery action was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108577</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>