https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127377 Liability under section 22(1)(a) of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941 requires the accused himself to answer the statutory description of a dealer carrying on business in contravention of the registration requirement; where the business is carried on by a company and the company is the registered dealer, proceedings lie against the company and not against an individual shareholder or participant. By contrast, a challenge under section 22(1)(g) based on absence of sanction under section 22(2) could not be accepted at the threshold on the materials before the Court, as the objection was not sufficiently established. The note thus distinguishes personal liability from corporate liability and rejects premature interference where sanction is not clearly shown to be lacking. en-us Tue, 30 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Mar 2013 11:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127377 Liability under section 22(1)(a) of the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act, 1941 requires the accused himself to answer the statutory description of a dealer carrying on business in contravention of the registration requirement; where the business is carried on by a company and the company is the registered dealer, proceedings lie against the company and not against an individual shareholder or participant. By contrast, a challenge under section 22(1)(g) based on absence of sanction under section 22(2) could not be accepted at the threshold on the materials before the Court, as the objection was not sufficiently established. The note thus distinguishes personal liability from corporate liability and rejects premature interference where sanction is not clearly shown to be lacking. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 30 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127377