https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148410 Section 39 authorises recovery from a person who owes or holds money for the dealer, but it does not empower the Commissioner to decide, in a summary proceeding, a disputed civil liability between an alleged third-party debtor and the dealer. A contractual undertaking between the petitioner and the dealer, even if assumed, did not create a direct liability enforceable by the State. Applying strict construction of taxing statutes, the court noted that no express power existed to adjudicate third-party liability, so the recovery notices and the consequential attachment and proclamation under land revenue provisions were without jurisdiction and invalid. en-us Mon, 08 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:33:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148410 Section 39 authorises recovery from a person who owes or holds money for the dealer, but it does not empower the Commissioner to decide, in a summary proceeding, a disputed civil liability between an alleged third-party debtor and the dealer. A contractual undertaking between the petitioner and the dealer, even if assumed, did not create a direct liability enforceable by the State. Applying strict construction of taxing statutes, the court noted that no express power existed to adjudicate third-party liability, so the recovery notices and the consequential attachment and proclamation under land revenue provisions were without jurisdiction and invalid. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 08 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148410