<?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>1963 (4) TMI 35 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128630</link>
    <description>A transferee deemed to be the registered dealer under section 19(1) in respect of unpaid tax is treated as such for the full operation of the taxing statute, so the legal fiction extends beyond assessment to recovery proceedings as well. The court also held that the special non obstante recovery power under section 13-A is not displaced by instalment arrangements recorded in certificate proceedings, because the provision allows recovery despite parallel payment terms and the revenue was not shown to have accepted the instalment arrangement. On that reasoning, the recovery action against the transferee was upheld and the writ challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 14:37:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165499" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (4) TMI 35 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128630</link>
      <description>A transferee deemed to be the registered dealer under section 19(1) in respect of unpaid tax is treated as such for the full operation of the taxing statute, so the legal fiction extends beyond assessment to recovery proceedings as well. The court also held that the special non obstante recovery power under section 13-A is not displaced by instalment arrangements recorded in certificate proceedings, because the provision allows recovery despite parallel payment terms and the revenue was not shown to have accepted the instalment arrangement. On that reasoning, the recovery action against the transferee was upheld and the writ challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128630</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>