<?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 236 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153441</link>
    <description>A deceased assessee&#039;s tax liability could be enforced against legal representatives only to the extent of the estate in their hands, but recovery could not proceed unless fresh demand notices were first issued and then disobeyed. The Court therefore held that the legal representatives could not be treated as defaulters on the basis of the original demand notice alone, and fresh notice was required before recovery proceedings could continue. The garnishee notices to third parties were not interfered with because the notices had been served on the addressees, who had not challenged them, and the petitioners could not contest them on their behalf.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:04:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170476" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (4) TMI 236 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153441</link>
      <description>A deceased assessee&#039;s tax liability could be enforced against legal representatives only to the extent of the estate in their hands, but recovery could not proceed unless fresh demand notices were first issued and then disobeyed. The Court therefore held that the legal representatives could not be treated as defaulters on the basis of the original demand notice alone, and fresh notice was required before recovery proceedings could continue. The garnishee notices to third parties were not interfered with because the notices had been served on the addressees, who had not challenged them, and the petitioners could not contest them on their behalf.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153441</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>