<?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>1968 (7) TMI 55 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148442</link>
    <description>Successor liability under section 19(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 arises only where the tax-liable dealer transfers, disposes of, or changes ownership of the business and another person succeeds in consequence of that act. On the stated facts, the earlier lessee had surrendered its leasehold rights and possession to the original owner, leaving no continuing interest in the factory, trade marks, or quota rights; the petitioner later acquired rights under a fresh lease after a complete break in business. Mere continuation of similar business at the same premises did not satisfy the statutory requirement, so the demand for the predecessor&#039;s tax dues could not be enforced against the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:29:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166482" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (7) TMI 55 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148442</link>
      <description>Successor liability under section 19(4) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 arises only where the tax-liable dealer transfers, disposes of, or changes ownership of the business and another person succeeds in consequence of that act. On the stated facts, the earlier lessee had surrendered its leasehold rights and possession to the original owner, leaving no continuing interest in the factory, trade marks, or quota rights; the petitioner later acquired rights under a fresh lease after a complete break in business. Mere continuation of similar business at the same premises did not satisfy the statutory requirement, so the demand for the predecessor&#039;s tax dues could not be enforced against the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148442</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>