<?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>1983 (4) TMI 235 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153426</link>
    <description>Section 3-C(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act treats a discontinued firm as continuing for assessment and recovery, and keeps former partners jointly and severally liable. That legal fiction does not require service on every erstwhile partner for procedural purposes. Service of the assessment order or notice on one former partner is sufficient service on the dissolved firm, and limitation for appeal runs from that date. The view that each partner had to be separately served was rejected as applicable to a different factual situation. The resulting legal position is that service on one served partner binds the dealer for limitation purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170461" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (4) TMI 235 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153426</link>
      <description>Section 3-C(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act treats a discontinued firm as continuing for assessment and recovery, and keeps former partners jointly and severally liable. That legal fiction does not require service on every erstwhile partner for procedural purposes. Service of the assessment order or notice on one former partner is sufficient service on the dissolved firm, and limitation for appeal runs from that date. The view that each partner had to be separately served was rejected as applicable to a different factual situation. The resulting legal position is that service on one served partner binds the dealer for limitation purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>