<?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>1960 (9) TMI 92 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128325</link>
    <description>Tax arrears finally assessed and made recoverable &quot;as if&quot; a fine could be enforced through civil execution under the Criminal Procedure Code. The court reasoned that section 386 of the Code permits a fine to be recovered by warrant through the Collector using civil process, and the statutory proviso barred only arrest or detention in prison, not attachment and sale. The objection that prosecution was invalid because the dealer was a firm rather than its partners was rejected, since all partners had been prosecuted and a firm has no separate legal existence from its partners. The warrant for civil recovery was therefore valid, and the jurisdictional objections failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165196" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (9) TMI 92 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128325</link>
      <description>Tax arrears finally assessed and made recoverable &quot;as if&quot; a fine could be enforced through civil execution under the Criminal Procedure Code. The court reasoned that section 386 of the Code permits a fine to be recovered by warrant through the Collector using civil process, and the statutory proviso barred only arrest or detention in prison, not attachment and sale. The objection that prosecution was invalid because the dealer was a firm rather than its partners was rejected, since all partners had been prosecuted and a firm has no separate legal existence from its partners. The warrant for civil recovery was therefore valid, and the jurisdictional objections failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>