<?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>2010 (8) TMI 822 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164167</link>
    <description>The Madras HC held that refund and security deposit amounts standing in the name of partnership concerns could not be adjusted towards arrears of tax without the consent of all partners having an interest in those sums. Although partners are jointly and severally liable for tax liabilities under the relevant rules, that liability did not authorise unilateral adjustment of amounts held in the firm&#039;s name. The court also noted that the release deed gave no protection over the refund and that the risk of competing claims by other partners was real. Interest charged under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was found to be in accordance with the statute, so the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352799" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 822 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164167</link>
      <description>The Madras HC held that refund and security deposit amounts standing in the name of partnership concerns could not be adjusted towards arrears of tax without the consent of all partners having an interest in those sums. Although partners are jointly and severally liable for tax liabilities under the relevant rules, that liability did not authorise unilateral adjustment of amounts held in the firm&#039;s name. The court also noted that the release deed gave no protection over the refund and that the risk of competing claims by other partners was real. Interest charged under section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act was found to be in accordance with the statute, so the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164167</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>