<?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>Retired partners remained liable for firm-related tax and penalty where no notice of retirement or dissolution was given to the department in the prescribed manner, because the statutory scheme allowed the firm to be treated as continuing for liability purposes. A dealer asserting consignment sales also had to prove the transfer as a genuine stock movement; the absence of supporting material such as agency records, sale particulars, commission details, or destination-side tax proof justified the inference of tax evasion. On those facts, the penalty for evasion was sustained, the liability challenge failed, and only an equitable arrangement was made regarding recovery inter se 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>Retired partners remained liable for firm-related tax and penalty where no notice of retirement or dissolution was given to the department in the prescribed manner, because the statutory scheme allowed the firm to be treated as continuing for liability purposes. A dealer asserting consignment sales also had to prove the transfer as a genuine stock movement; the absence of supporting material such as agency records, sale particulars, commission details, or destination-side tax proof justified the inference of tax evasion. On those facts, the penalty for evasion was sustained, the liability challenge failed, and only an equitable arrangement was made regarding recovery inter se 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>