https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157434 Sales tax recovery could not be enforced against a person unless liability was established through a proper assessment or proof that he was in fact a partner of the firm. A disputed question of partnership could not be determined in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, because it depended on factual evidence. The proper course was for the Sales Tax Officer to decide the petitioner's objection after allowing evidence to be adduced. Recovery was kept in abeyance pending that determination. en-us Wed, 05 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Oct 2013 15:30:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157434 Sales tax recovery could not be enforced against a person unless liability was established through a proper assessment or proof that he was in fact a partner of the firm. A disputed question of partnership could not be determined in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, because it depended on factual evidence. The proper course was for the Sales Tax Officer to decide the petitioner's objection after allowing evidence to be adduced. Recovery was kept in abeyance pending that determination. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 05 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157434