<?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>1955 (1) TMI 29 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127421</link>
    <description>Under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the definition of &quot;dealer&quot; was read to include both the firm and its individual partners carrying on the business, so tax liability attached to every dealer for turnover earned while the business was active. Section 8A on registration did not create a separate legal entity for the firm, and section 18 was treated as consistent with liability for the period of actual trading despite later dissolution. The absence of an express saving provision like section 44 of the Income-tax Act did not relieve former partners from liability. Assessment and recovery from a former partner were therefore held permissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:53:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164298" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (1) TMI 29 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127421</link>
      <description>Under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the definition of &quot;dealer&quot; was read to include both the firm and its individual partners carrying on the business, so tax liability attached to every dealer for turnover earned while the business was active. Section 8A on registration did not create a separate legal entity for the firm, and section 18 was treated as consistent with liability for the period of actual trading despite later dissolution. The absence of an express saving provision like section 44 of the Income-tax Act did not relieve former partners from liability. Assessment and recovery from a former partner were therefore held permissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127421</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>