<?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 (8) TMI 171 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148505</link>
    <description>Assessment proceedings begun under the repealed Hyderabad Act were not barred by limitation, because the saving clause in section 41 of the Andhra Pradesh Act preserved liabilities and pending assessments already initiated under the earlier law. A validating amendment, section 15-B, authorised assessment of a dissolved firm and recovery from former partners or legal representatives, so the assessment and recovery were upheld. Separate notice to a retired partner was not required where the firm was represented throughout by the partner in charge and dissolution had not been intimated to the revenue authorities; service on the managing partner was treated as sufficient notice and opportunity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:38:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=166545" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (8) TMI 171 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148505</link>
      <description>Assessment proceedings begun under the repealed Hyderabad Act were not barred by limitation, because the saving clause in section 41 of the Andhra Pradesh Act preserved liabilities and pending assessments already initiated under the earlier law. A validating amendment, section 15-B, authorised assessment of a dissolved firm and recovery from former partners or legal representatives, so the assessment and recovery were upheld. Separate notice to a retired partner was not required where the firm was represented throughout by the partner in charge and dissolution had not been intimated to the revenue authorities; service on the managing partner was treated as sufficient notice and opportunity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Aug 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=148505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>