<?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>1948 (3) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127093</link>
    <description>Penal liability for operating a retail business without a registration certificate attaches only to the person who actually carries on business as a retail dealer. The statutory scheme distinguished a retail dealer from a servant or salesman, and the rule on business after a dealer&#039;s death did not convert an employee into a dealer. On the facts, control of the business had passed to the deceased dealer&#039;s son, while the applicant merely worked as a servant and rendered accounts under another&#039;s control. He could not therefore be treated as carrying on the retail business or prosecuted for contravention of the Act; the conviction and sentence were set aside and any fine was to be refunded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 1948 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:06:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163971" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1948 (3) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127093</link>
      <description>Penal liability for operating a retail business without a registration certificate attaches only to the person who actually carries on business as a retail dealer. The statutory scheme distinguished a retail dealer from a servant or salesman, and the rule on business after a dealer&#039;s death did not convert an employee into a dealer. On the facts, control of the business had passed to the deceased dealer&#039;s son, while the applicant merely worked as a servant and rendered accounts under another&#039;s control. He could not therefore be treated as carrying on the retail business or prosecuted for contravention of the Act; the conviction and sentence were set aside and any fine was to be refunded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 1948 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127093</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>