<?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 (12) TMI 349 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154952</link>
    <description>Transferee liability under section 19 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, arises only when the entire business is transferred as a going concern and unpaid tax remains outstanding at the time of transfer. The statutory presumption of an entire transfer from continuation of business at the same premises in substantially the same goods is rebuttable. On the facts, the record showed only sale of stock-in-trade, with no proof that the purchaser acquired the business, goodwill, assets, or liabilities as a running concern. Liability could not therefore be fastened on the successor dealer merely because the same type of business continued from the same premises.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:46:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (12) TMI 349 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154952</link>
      <description>Transferee liability under section 19 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, arises only when the entire business is transferred as a going concern and unpaid tax remains outstanding at the time of transfer. The statutory presumption of an entire transfer from continuation of business at the same premises in substantially the same goods is rebuttable. On the facts, the record showed only sale of stock-in-trade, with no proof that the purchaser acquired the business, goodwill, assets, or liabilities as a running concern. Liability could not therefore be fastened on the successor dealer merely because the same type of business continued from the same premises.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154952</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>