<?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>1958 (5) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127764</link>
    <description>A candidate is disqualified under section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, if he has a share or interest in a subsisting government supply contract. The Court treated partnership participation in a firm holding such a contract as enough to attribute that contractual interest to all partners, especially where one partner entered the contract for the benefit of the firm. It also held that the sales tax documents and the appellant&#039;s own statement could prove partnership and interest, and that the confidentiality rule in the U.P. Sales Tax Act did not bar their production. The election was therefore void on the ground of statutory disqualification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:38:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=164639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (5) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127764</link>
      <description>A candidate is disqualified under section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, if he has a share or interest in a subsisting government supply contract. The Court treated partnership participation in a firm holding such a contract as enough to attribute that contractual interest to all partners, especially where one partner entered the contract for the benefit of the firm. It also held that the sales tax documents and the appellant&#039;s own statement could prove partnership and interest, and that the confidentiality rule in the U.P. Sales Tax Act did not bar their production. The election was therefore void on the ground of statutory disqualification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127764</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>