<?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>2003 (1) TMI 675 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161624</link>
    <description>Sales tax dues could not be enforced against a person unless liability was fixed on that person by law. The tribunal found that the petitioner was not shown to be a transferee liable for the defaulting company&#039;s past dues, no statutory provision or notification fastened that liability, and the relevant demand notice and assessment order were not served on the petitioner. The certificate proceeding was therefore not legally maintainable and the order refusing to drop it was set aside. As the petitioner&#039;s bank account was attached to recover sums without lawful authority, the amount collected was refundable, though the respondents remained free to proceed against the proper debtor in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Feb 2014 18:35:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=344798" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 675 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161624</link>
      <description>Sales tax dues could not be enforced against a person unless liability was fixed on that person by law. The tribunal found that the petitioner was not shown to be a transferee liable for the defaulting company&#039;s past dues, no statutory provision or notification fastened that liability, and the relevant demand notice and assessment order were not served on the petitioner. The certificate proceeding was therefore not legally maintainable and the order refusing to drop it was set aside. As the petitioner&#039;s bank account was attached to recover sums without lawful authority, the amount collected was refundable, though the respondents remained free to proceed against the proper debtor in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161624</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>