https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128308 Rule 19 required disclosure of a partnership to the assessing authority and imposed joint and several responsibility on the dealer or licensee and the partner for tax dues. Non-reporting of the partnership did not create immunity from sales tax arrears, so a partner could not avoid liability on that ground. The writ challenge to attachment was also rejected because the disputed facts required factual examination before the authorities or in civil proceedings, and the underlying tax had already been paid. Relief against encashment of the cheque was untenable because the cheque had already been cashed before the petition was filed. en-us Tue, 06 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:42:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128308 Rule 19 required disclosure of a partnership to the assessing authority and imposed joint and several responsibility on the dealer or licensee and the partner for tax dues. Non-reporting of the partnership did not create immunity from sales tax arrears, so a partner could not avoid liability on that ground. The writ challenge to attachment was also rejected because the disputed facts required factual examination before the authorities or in civil proceedings, and the underlying tax had already been paid. Relief against encashment of the cheque was untenable because the cheque had already been cashed before the petition was filed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 06 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128308