<?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>2007 (12) TMI 426 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163266</link>
    <description>The court held that retired partners are liable for penalties under the Kerala General Sales Tax (KGST) Act if they do not inform the assessing officer about their retirement, as per the Indian Partnership Act. Failure to give notice of retirement as required under the KGST Rules can result in continued liability for retired partners. Partners who hold out to be members of the firm to third parties are also liable for acts done after dissolution until public notice is given. The court dismissed the petitions related to retired partners&#039; liability for penalties and upheld the penalty for tax evasion due to insufficient evidence provided by the petitioners.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350073" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (12) TMI 426 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163266</link>
      <description>The court held that retired partners are liable for penalties under the Kerala General Sales Tax (KGST) Act if they do not inform the assessing officer about their retirement, as per the Indian Partnership Act. Failure to give notice of retirement as required under the KGST Rules can result in continued liability for retired partners. Partners who hold out to be members of the firm to third parties are also liable for acts done after dissolution until public notice is given. The court dismissed the petitions related to retired partners&#039; liability for penalties and upheld the penalty for tax evasion due to insufficient evidence provided by the petitioners.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>