https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151524 Persons claiming to have retired from a dealer-firm remained liable for the firm's sales tax dues because the alleged retirement was not shown to be legally effective under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. No material established retirement by consent, express agreement, notice in a partnership at will, or public notice, so they continued to be partners in law and able for the firm's obligations. As the tax liability was that of the dealer-firm, the recovery provision permitted realisation of the arrears as land revenue from the dealer and its partners. The objection concerning attachment of property of third parties was treated as disputed and was not finally decided. en-us Thu, 04 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:21:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151524 Persons claiming to have retired from a dealer-firm remained liable for the firm's sales tax dues because the alleged retirement was not shown to be legally effective under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. No material established retirement by consent, express agreement, notice in a partnership at will, or public notice, so they continued to be partners in law and able for the firm's obligations. As the tax liability was that of the dealer-firm, the recovery provision permitted realisation of the arrears as land revenue from the dealer and its partners. The objection concerning attachment of property of third parties was treated as disputed and was not finally decided. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 04 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151524