<?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>1986 (10) TMI 310 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154696</link>
    <description>Section 54 confidentiality under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act protects sales tax records against disclosure to strangers, but it does not bar use of the firm&#039;s own records in litigation between partners. Documents produced before tax authorities on behalf of the firm were treated as documents of all partners, and admitted records could be relied on in the partnership dispute. The materials, including tax records, books, mortgage documents, and oral evidence, supported the conclusion that &quot;PLASTO&quot; was a partnership concern of the plaintiff and defendants, with each party entitled to a one-third share in capital and profits. The trial court decree was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:43:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171727" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (10) TMI 310 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154696</link>
      <description>Section 54 confidentiality under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act protects sales tax records against disclosure to strangers, but it does not bar use of the firm&#039;s own records in litigation between partners. Documents produced before tax authorities on behalf of the firm were treated as documents of all partners, and admitted records could be relied on in the partnership dispute. The materials, including tax records, books, mortgage documents, and oral evidence, supported the conclusion that &quot;PLASTO&quot; was a partnership concern of the plaintiff and defendants, with each party entitled to a one-third share in capital and profits. The trial court decree was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154696</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>