https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127720 Recovery of sales tax from an alleged partner was held impermissible where the statutory partnership-reporting requirement had not been complied with and no prior notice was served. Rule 34 of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Rules, 1950 made joint and several liability depend on timely intimation of the partnership to the tax authorities. As neither the dealer nor the petitioner had reported any partnership, and the petitioner was proceeded against only on later information without an opportunity to show cause, the attempted recovery lacked legal foundation and disclosed a patent want of jurisdiction. The writ restraining recovery was therefore justified. en-us Mon, 27 Jan 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:34:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127720 Recovery of sales tax from an alleged partner was held impermissible where the statutory partnership-reporting requirement had not been complied with and no prior notice was served. Rule 34 of the Hyderabad General Sales Tax Rules, 1950 made joint and several liability depend on timely intimation of the partnership to the tax authorities. As neither the dealer nor the petitioner had reported any partnership, and the petitioner was proceeded against only on later information without an opportunity to show cause, the attempted recovery lacked legal foundation and disclosed a patent want of jurisdiction. The writ restraining recovery was therefore justified. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 27 Jan 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127720