<?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>2014 (10) TMI 11 - Calcutta High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251877</link>
    <description>A successor business entity remained liable for pre-existing customs and excise dues where the proprietorship concern had continued in substance as a partnership firm, with business continuity and transfer of assets showing succession. The Court held that change in the form of business did not extinguish the statutory liability, and the recovery provision could be applied because it was already in force when proceedings began. Reliance on authorities concerning dissolved firms was distinguished, and the earlier challenge having attained finality reinforced enforcement. The demand and proposed attachment were therefore sustained, and the writ petition was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2014 06:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366158" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (10) TMI 11 - Calcutta High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251877</link>
      <description>A successor business entity remained liable for pre-existing customs and excise dues where the proprietorship concern had continued in substance as a partnership firm, with business continuity and transfer of assets showing succession. The Court held that change in the form of business did not extinguish the statutory liability, and the recovery provision could be applied because it was already in force when proceedings began. Reliance on authorities concerning dissolved firms was distinguished, and the earlier challenge having attained finality reinforced enforcement. The demand and proposed attachment were therefore sustained, and the writ petition was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251877</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>